Dallas man went back to bed after killing burglar, police say

Chomsky said:

Oh man, that was a great story CB.

I know you're the real deal, because you describe the details of the era and environment well. Your a good writer my friend, and you painted a picture that made me feel right there.

BTW, Rickie Lee Jones is awesome in her using the phrases & references of '60's kids on the street, particularly the pre-hippie era. Before there were hippies, longhairs, and the summer of love, there were greasers. And working-class kids in the major old northeast cities we're greasers, for the most part. Then some of us grew-up in cities with a significant mob presence, which only added to the mix.

Click to expand...

HA! I love it. We knew plenty of hippies but they were a bit of a problem.
We adored the gorgeous hippie chicks with their unfettered breasts tucked into those hippie chick peasant blouses, the tantalizing aroma of Patchouli, the denim miniskirts and the FREE LOVE philosophy.
Sigh, almost heaven. Correction, it WAS heaven, dammit! :lamo

But the hippie guys all loved VW's, and they didn't believe in working, or money.
My first goddamn car was a 1969 VW, and I got rid of it after a year and a half, it served well for a fifty dollar car but I hated the way it drove.



Next car was a big block 1972 Nova, MUCH better!
We all had the long hair, we all dug Jimi and Dylan, and Little Feat, and Steppenwolf, and Leon.
But we were still motorheads, we all had jobs, we all LIKED earning money.
People called them hippies and called us longhaired freaks.

I think the difference might be the freaks didn't object to capitalism quite as much as the hippies.
Subtle difference now, almost fifty years later...does anyone really CARE about the subtle nuance?
No, because it doesn't really matter now, but it mattered then!
It mattered to some of us because we kept right on stealing all those delightfully sexy hippie chicks!
If for no other reason, when their hippie boyfriends were broke, we were rolling down Wisconsin Avenue in our fast cars, we were rolling into the Cedar Lane Unitarian Church Coffeehouse with money in our pockets. :lamo

And that is why, even though I identify as a lefty, I still laugh when righties start fearmongering about impending socialism.



Now, just as back then, there will NOT actually BE any "socialism", just a couple of adjustments for the common working man and some help for the vulnerable. The real actual card carrying socialists are already pissed off because they don't think they will actually GET their "socialism".
We already know they won't but they should he overjoyed because if we get a fighting chance, we CAN implement some of the ideas we grew up under, which was MUCH better than socialism.
Socially the country might have been screwed up but economically we were all in the catbird seat in America back then.
Even a minimum wage dork could manage to scrape by without being homeless. Maybe his pad sucked but it was better than a cardboard box.
And most min-wage dorks didn't stay dorks for long because upward mobility was a foregone conclusion, just get in there and apply yourself and you could rise all the way to the top with hard work.

How is that people who grew up back then can't remind folks what it was like?

Chomsky said:

James Meyer very likely lied about going back to sleep, but most importantly he disturbed the crime scene and sought-out legal advice before calling the police.

in due time, I suspect we'll find-out much more about the circumstance that implored the SA to file charges. Things they know, that you & I do not.

Click to expand...

Maybe you have other sources, but I checked several - they all said Meyer claimed to have gone back to bed but none quoted him as saying he went back to sleep. I may be picking semantic nits if you're equating going to bed with going to sleep - as an insomniac, I can tell you they're not necessarily the same. But you accused him of lying about going back to sleep, thereby implying he lied about other things.

Anyway, seeking legal advice was prudent. Delaying calling 911 for two hours (regardless what he did in the meantime) and disturbing the scene was suspicious, or stupid at best. You're right that we don't have all the facts. Only two people know exactly what happened and one of them is dead. But based on what we do know, I'd guess (and that's all it is) the murder charge stems from Meyer's admission that he shot at the retreating burglar. If it can be shown that was the kill shot, he's probably screwed. Otherwise, he may succeed in claiming defense of himself and his castle.

Chomsky said:

James Meyer very likely lied about going back to sleep, but most importantly he disturbed the crime scene and sought-out legal advice before calling the police.

in due time, I suspect we'll find-out much more about the circumstance that implored the SA to file charges. Things they know, that you & I do not.

Click to expand...

I agree, we should never be rushing to judgement before the facts are known, right.

CHuDWah said:

Maybe you have other sources, but I checked several - they all said Meyer claimed to have gone back to bed but none quoted him as saying he went back to sleep. I may be picking semantic nits if you're equating going to bed with going to sleep - as an insomniac, I can tell you they're not necessarily the same. But you accused him of lying about going back to sleep, thereby implying he lied about other things.

Anyway, seeking legal advice was prudent. Delaying calling 911 for two hours (regardless what he did in the meantime) and disturbing the scene was suspicious, or stupid at best. You're right that we don't have all the facts. Only two people know exactly what happened and one of them is dead. But based on what we do know, I'd guess (and that's all it is) the murder charge stems from Meyer's admission that he shot at the retreating burglar. If it can be shown that was the kill shot, he's probably screwed. Otherwise, he may succeed in claiming defense of himself and his castle.

Click to expand...

???

You're pretty funny.

So if I told you,

"I'm sleeping with my neighbor's wife",

would you claim I was "sleeping"?

Yeah, right.

JacksinPA said:

Dallas man went back to bed after killing burglar, police say

James Michael Meyer was charged with murder in the shooting at his home.

DALLAS — Authorities say a 72-year-old Dallas man fatally shot a suspected burglar behind his home and then went back to bed before finally calling police nearly two hours later.

The Dallas Morning News reports that James Michael Meyer has been charged with murder in the Thursday killing and was jailed on $150,000 bail as of Friday.
======================================================
Texans has a very relaxed attitude about firearms & their right to use them.

The stars at night are big & bright...

Click to expand...

Not even considering killing someone, having a burglar in our home would rob me of my sleep for sure.

The OPer, ultra pro-criminal in his message, confirms the Democratic Party's ideology that everyone has an ethical duty to allow themselves to be defenselessly assaulted, raped, kidnapped, tortured and murdered.

These are the facts the OPer left off:

1. The burglar was trying to break into his shed with a PICK AX
2. The person came at the old man with the PICK AX - refusing to stop
3. The wife called 911 and a lawyer

In fact, as much as most Democrats 100% HATE the Bill Of Rights and due process, he had the "right to remain silent" and NO ONE EVER MUST talk to the police as a constitutional right.

Of course, since the Democratic Party wants a total police-state fascist government, his not instantly abandoning his constitutional rights makes him a murderer and criminal.

I have no problem with him going back to bed. He is 72 years old and it is NOT rare for old people - particularly men - who are confronted with violent by a criminal to literally die of a heart attack. Had he not gone to lie down he very possibly would have died of a heart attack.

The other FACT left out by the OP link is that the person has run off into a park in the dark. Anyone with an IQ over 80 understands that means the old man didn't know he had shot anyone. If you shoot at someone and they run away, you have no reason to believe that person was injured.

With that, why waste your time calling the police? You would wait 1 to 2 hours for them to arrive, tell them what? They would fill out a report that they might as well just throw away since it will lead to nothing as all it would say is someone in the dark tried to break into a shed, charged an old man with a pick ax, the old man had a gun and fired in self defense, but the burglar and attempted murderer fled off into the dark.

Of course, now in Democratic Party it is a crime to defend yourself against being hacked to death by an ax.

BOTTOMLINE - most anti-gunners believe if a burglar charges at an elderly person with a pick ax, that elder person is legally required to allow himself being hacked to death. If the elderly person harms the attacker in self defense the elderly person committed a crime. That also is the stance of the DEMOCRATIC law enforcement of Dallas County - the same law enforcement/DA that announced anyone can steal up to $500 and there will be no prosecution.

If on the the jury, on the facts in the article, I would not only find the old man not guilty, I would publicly state after the trial that in my opinion the District Attorney should be prosecuted for official oppression, which is a crime in Texas.

Chomsky said:

James Meyer very likely lied about going back to sleep, but most importantly he disturbed the crime scene and sought-out legal advice before calling the police.

in due time, I suspect we'll find-out much more about the circumstance that implored the SA to file charges. Things they know, that you & I do not.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand your hatred of the Bill Of Rights and like to make up non-existent laws in your messages.

Please quote the law that says it is a crime to throw away bullet casings? You can't. The crime of "disturbing a crime scene?" All of earth is a "crime scene," for which everyone is a criminal by your standard.

You aren't the only anti-gun person declaring that the right to remain silent is SO wrong, that anyone who does so commits a criminal act.

You demand this replace the Miranda Warning:

"You have no right to remain silent. Refusing to talk to the police is a criminal offense. You have no right to talk to an attorney. Talking to an attorney is a criminal offense. From this point forward, you may not sleep without express permission from the police. If you go to sleep without permission of the police it is a crime."

The officer would then explain that all criminal laws and constitutional rights have been suspended indefinitely and it is up to the police and district attorney to decide whether or not they like what you did. If they don't, you committed whatever crime they want to convict you of.

THAT clearly is YOUR view. Nearly all progressive Democrats on this forum have repeatedly explained their intense hatred of the Bill Of Rights and rule of law. Anything they don't like is a crime. Actually laws, statutes and court ruling are all irrelevant to anything.

There is NO legal requirement to talk to police - ever. Have I ever shot at anyone in my life and not called the police? Yes. Was that illegal? No. Either it was legal to shoot - or not. Everyone has the "right to remain silent" to the police.

Even if I did talk to law enforcement about it, it was as long as 14 years later and it was on my initiative because I wanted something from law enforcement out of it - and got it. But won't go into that. (I don't have so much as a parking ticket conviction).

The old man's mistake was talking to the police later. He never should have done so.

The story says his wife talked to a lawyer before calling 911. If that lawyer told her to have him tell the police what happened he should be disbarred. The old man should have ONLY communicated indirectly thru an attorney.

This is exactly what a person should do if they shoot someone in self defense or defense of someone else:

1. Contact the police, ideally have someone else do it for you, stating "someone has been shot." Do not say you shot anyone.

2. When the police arrive, tell them you are under too much stress to talk and that you won't talk until you have spoken to an attorney. You also may want to go to ER if older as this is a high heart attack rate situation - but do NOT go if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs unless the police take you into custody and take you for such testing.

DO NOT answer doctor's questions, they are witnesses for the police. Contrary to TV, there is NO doctor-patient privilege in criminal matters.

Do NOT talk to other people about what happened. They also are witnesses and can misquote you - just like the police can.

3. Talk to a criminal defense attorney first. Do whatever the attorney says, but you should do your talking THRU the attorney because then it is inadmissible hearsay.

A person can NOT talk themselves out of an arrest. They can only talk themselves into arrest and conviction. The police are NOT in the business of finding people not-guilty. They are in the business of arresting people and getting them convicted.

Once you start talking to the police, you increasingly reduce your lawyer's negotiating ability. If you confess (maybe not knowing you did) your lawyer has no cards left to play.

NOT talking to police is almost impossible for most people, but in such a situation that is THE thing to do - NO exceptions.

If this old man had talked to a criminal defense lawyer instead of the police when he finally did, a conviction would be almost impossible UNLESS the old man is white and the attempted murderer is black.

If that is the case and given he is in Democratic Dallas County with the most pro-criminal DA in the USA, then he is guilty of the crime of being white. He will be put before a black grand jury and black jury from a black jury pool, before a pro-criminal Democratic judge of a jury of black Democrats from voter registration and found guilty of whatever the DA wants him convicted of. That's how it works in Dallas now.

Outlook said:

The legal system will deal with the 72 year old shooter.
Is this story horrific because he went back to bed?
Why was the guy on his property? What time of night? Was the shooter in danger?
What could have happened if the 72 year old guy didn’t have a gun? Is it possible he could have been killed or hurt?

Click to expand...

This was not just a burglar. This was an attempted murder. The criminal came at the old man with a pick ax. He is guilty of the crime of not allowing himself to be hacked to death - a particularly violent, brutal way to be murdered - and then probably his elderly wife to eliminate her as a witness. She had a duty to allow herself to be murdered in Dallas County - particularly if she also is white.

White people in Democrat Dallas County have a strict duty to not defend against any criminal attack. That is the law there now.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I deferred to him as much as possible, at every opportunity. I never wanted to be that guy who came between a man and his kids.
I wanted him to play an active role in raising his kids, I wanted them to enjoy some kind of healthy relationship with their natural father.

But he was so filled up with his steroid rage, and his twisted jack Mormon belief that his wife was damaged goods who gave him a damaged son (our son is disabled, too) that when he walked out on his wife and kids, he made up a narrative that absolved him of any role or responsibility.

And part of his threat contained, "No, this is MY HOUSE, those are MY kids, and MY wife and you're just the guy who's ****ing MY wife, and it's time to kick YOUR ass."

Ummmm....yeah-NO.
It was NEVER his house, it was a house WE rented, and he had nothing to do with it. And he and Karen were LONG ago divorced!
Like I said, drunken steroid rage.
It's pretty much his trademark, although at this stage of the game he's not only off the steroids, he's not in that kind of shape anymore.
He is now paying the price for burning the candle at both ends.

Click to expand...

I give you credit for navigating these waters. All I can say, is: "Always put the kids first". Which is what we do as parents. The other thought that occurred to me is, "Cooler heads prevail".

JacksinPA said:

Dallas man went back to bed after killing burglar, police say

James Michael Meyer was charged with murder in the shooting at his home.

DALLAS — Authorities say a 72-year-old Dallas man fatally shot a suspected burglar behind his home and then went back to bed before finally calling police nearly two hours later.

The Dallas Morning News reports that James Michael Meyer has been charged with murder in the Thursday killing and was jailed on $150,000 bail as of Friday.
======================================================
Texans has a very relaxed attitude about firearms & their right to use them.

The stars at night are big & bright...

Click to expand...

From what I know of the case, I don't see any reason he'd be convicted.

Whether he contaminated the crime scene or not the way to me isn't a factor.

All I need to know is "Was the dead guy in this man's home without the owner's permission?" If yes, then I hope he walks.

Chomsky said:

I give you credit for navigating these waters. All I can say, is: "Always put the kids first". Which is what we do as parents. The other thought that occurred to me is, "Cooler heads prevail".

Click to expand...

I didn't navigate anything. I was going to pop a cap in his dumb ass, as they say.

The only reason it didn't happen is because he saw me go for the pistol and he ran out of the house screaming about how he was calling the cops.
To which both of us yelled, "Go ahead, see what happens!"...and we didn't actually think he would, but he did!
They showed up!
We were surprised but okay...he went there, so there we were, sitting in our living room with Dallas PD for about an hour.

The whole incident is something I hope to never have to repeat ever again.
What a lot of people don't realize is, even just going for a firearm, even if you never actually use it, is traumatic.
And I am saying that AS a firearm owner.

Maybe it was a delayed reaction but even though I was calm while they were there, after they left I "needed a minute" to collect myself, and it affected everyone in the family.
Of course when you get proper training, which I have, scenarios get played out all the time.
But that is not the same as actually experiencing it in real life.
I was a mess.
And here is where it gets even worse...
Because Karen's sister married my older brother, I'd known Karen AND her first husband for MANY YEARS WHILE they WERE married.
They knew my first wife, too. Her sister and my brother would show up at the family home for a dinner or other gathering, and Karen and Mr. ****head would tag along. He was not a stranger to me at all.

For all my "joking" about "popping a cap in his ass"...after the police left and it was all over, my hands were shaking.
I almost had to shoot the kids natural father! As much as I detest the guy, I was relieved it didn't come to that.
How the Hell would I be able to explain that to an eight and ten year old?

And I can also say this much:
For all the swagger talk I have made about shooting an uninvited stranger in my home, it wouldn't be any different just because it was a stranger.
Just as in this case, I know I would have the nerve to do it but, just as in this incident, I would be a mess after it was all over, even if I did not have to actually discharge my weapon, even if they had been armed, even if they were a burglar or a rapist, even if they had total intent to do harm.
I would still be a mess anyway.
It's not some TV show or some movie, it's real life.

And the moment you realize just how serious the whole situation is, that is when you suddenly find yourself wondering how anyone else can cope with it, police officers, security people, military...how do they cope with such a thing?
Sure, they have much more training, it's their job after all.
But still, on a personal level, after the dust and smoke settles, how DO these people cope with the reality that they shot a person, or almost shot them?

To Karen's credit, she finally said to me one night:

"This is why I divorced him...it wasn't just the cheating, it wasn't just his drinking, it wasn't just his natural tendency to get into trouble all the time, it was his anger issues, his temper, his way of dealing with me, with the kids, with everything. You did what you thought you had to do, and while I am relieved you didn't end up shooting him, if you had, I guarantee you I would have felt he deserved it. At least he was smart enough to turn tail and run out of the house. Maybe if he had been more drunk, he wouldn't have. I've seen him engage his mouth and regret it far too many times to come to any other conclusion."

Still doesn't change the fact that it haunts me to this day however.
I am just really really lucky, that's all.

Chomsky said:

???

You're pretty funny.

So if I told you,

"I'm sleeping with my neighbor's wife",

would you claim I was "sleeping"?

Yeah, right.

Click to expand...

That’s all you got from my post? :roll: Your affair with your neighbor’s wife notwithstanding, you’re the one who accused Meyer of lying about going back to SLEEP:

Chomsky said:

James Meyer didn't go back to sleep. He claims he went back to sleep.

Click to expand...

Chomsky said:

James Meyer very likely lied about going back to sleep…

Click to expand...

I pointed out he admitted he went back to bed but AFAIK, said nothing about sleeping. I also noted that may be just a semantic difference. But if I had shot at a burglar, I wouldn't be sleeping, in bed or otherwise.

Anyway, you seem convinced Meyer is lying and therefore guilty. Delaying calling 911 and disturbing the scene is suspicious. But if he was trying to cover up a crime, why did he admit firing at the retreating burglar? Like I said, my guess is that’s what led to the murder charge.

Chomsky said:

James Meyer very likely lied about going back to sleep, but most importantly he disturbed the crime scene and sought-out legal advice before calling the police.

in due time, I suspect we'll find-out much more about the circumstance that implored the SA to file charges. Things they know, that you & I do not.

Click to expand...

Excellent Logic.

joko104 said:

Yes, I understand your hatred of the Bill Of Rights and like to make up non-existent laws in your messages.

Please quote the law that says it is a crime to throw away bullet casings? You can't. The crime of "disturbing a crime scene?" All of earth is a "crime scene," for which everyone is a criminal by your standard.

You aren't the only anti-gun person declaring that the right to remain silent is SO wrong, that anyone who does so commits a criminal act.

You demand this replace the Miranda Warning:

"You have no right to remain silent. Refusing to talk to the police is a criminal offense. You have no right to talk to an attorney. Talking to an attorney is a criminal offense. From this point forward, you may not sleep without express permission from the police. If you go to sleep without permission of the police it is a crime."

The officer would then explain that all criminal laws and constitutional rights have been suspended indefinitely and it is up to the police and district attorney to decide whether or not they like what you did. If they don't, you committed whatever crime they want to convict you of.

THAT clearly is YOUR view. Nearly all progressive Democrats on this forum have repeatedly explained their intense hatred of the Bill Of Rights and rule of law. Anything they don't like is a crime. Actually laws, statutes and court ruling are all irrelevant to anything.

Click to expand...

You "understand" what, Joko?

HIP56948 said:

Excellent Logic.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

CHuDWah said:

That’s all you got from my post? :roll: Your affair with your neighbor’s wife notwithstanding, you’re the one who accused Meyer of lying about going back to SLEEP:





I pointed out he admitted he went back to bed but AFAIK, said nothing about sleeping. I also noted that may be just a semantic difference. But if I had shot at a burglar, I wouldn't be sleeping, in bed or otherwise.

Anyway, you seem convinced Meyer is lying and therefore guilty. Delaying calling 911 and disturbing the scene is suspicious. But if he was trying to cover up a crime, why did he admit firing at the retreating burglar? Like I said, my guess is that’s what led to the murder charge.

Click to expand...

All I know is the evidence the OP and yourself presented. And Meyer looks suspicious by the evidence presented in this thread.

Seems everyone wants to avoid the subject of the burglar coming at the old guy with a pick ax. Have you ever seen and used a pick ax? A particularly brutal weapon.

Police training is if someone has a weapon like that, if the person is told to drop it and doesn't - and is or comes within 30 feet, the police are to gun that person down as 30 feet it the closest still probably safe distance. If a person is coming at you with a pick ax 10 feet away you're not going to stop that person from reaching you.

Why does everyone debate this think that pick ax is irrelevant? Or are people just doing their genetic talking points without regard for actual details of the incident?

A burglar in the act of a felony was coming at a 72 year old guy with a pick ax. What was the old guy supposed to do? Stop the burglar with a Bruce Lee flying kick? Luckily the old guy had a gun and luckily he didn't just drop dead of a heart attack.

Anti-self defense rights anti-gun rights people explain you have a duty to allow yourself to be murdered by claiming that if you use a gun to stop this guy, you are a murderer.



Most anti-2Aers say using a gun to stop being murdered this way make the would-be victim a murderer who should be imprisoned for the crime of not being murdered.

That old guy's crime in Democratic Dallas is he's white. And not rich.

Chomsky said:

All I know is the evidence the OP and yourself presented. And Meyer looks suspicious by the evidence presented in this thread.

Click to expand...

Fair 'nuff. Certainly, Meyer's actions and statement are suspicious. But what bothers me is, if he's trying to cover a crime, why did he admit to shooting at the retreating burglar? At that point, there no longer was a threat. So firing was in itself a crime, up to and including murder.

Chomsky said:

To the bolded: Perhaps.

But we don't know what else Mr. Meyer did or lied about, nor do we know the exact relationship between the men, or even the precise specifics of the incident as it went down. But the SA knew enough that we don't, that he felt compelled to file charges.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

Seems everyone wants to avoid the subject of the burglar coming at the old guy with a pick ax. Have you ever seen and used a pick ax? A particularly brutal weapon.

Police training is if someone has a weapon like that, if the person is told to drop it and doesn't - and is or comes within 30 feet, the police are to gun that person down as 30 feet it the closest still probably safe distance. If a person is coming at you with a pick ax 10 feet away you're not going to stop that person from reaching you.

Why does everyone debate this think that pick ax is irrelevant? Or are people just doing their genetic talking points without regard for actual details of the incident?

A burglar in the act of a felony was coming at a 72 year old guy with a pick ax. What was the old guy supposed to do? Stop the burglar with a Bruce Lee flying kick? Luckily the old guy had a gun and luckily he didn't just drop dead of a heart attack.

Click to expand...

Seems you want to avoid being called on this little nugget, pulled fresh from your nether regions..."Yes, I understand your hatred of the Bill Of Rights".
Please explain that accusation of 'Chomsky' to the class.

CHuDWah said:

Fair 'nuff. Certainly, Meyer's actions and statement are suspicious. But what bothers me is, if he's trying to cover a crime, why did he admit to shooting at the retreating burglar? At that point, there no longer was a threat. So firing was in itself a crime, up to and including murder.

Click to expand...

Problem is, the article was missing a great many details, which is why I said we'll have to see what shakes-out in court. Obviously, by the evidence available the state feels compelled to charge him. Unless the trial presents a clear picture as to Meyer's defense, I can see the disturbance of the scene, along with the long period of time before reporting the incident, to be problematic for him in the hands of the jury. As a juror I'd certainly want to know why he was doing yardwork, rather than informing the authorities and calling for medical assistance for the dying man.

Nobody should be prosecuted for defending their property. I wouldnt care if Meyer did cartwheels on the front lawn before calling 911- a man should have the right to protect his property from criminals. Plenty of burglaries have resulted in the deaths of the home owners at the hands of the burglars.