Posted on 12/11/2012 6:15:25 AM PST by BO Stinkss
A suspected burglar got more than he could handle when he attempted to break into an Oklahoma City home, which ended up being inhabited by a boxing and kickboxing trainer — and apparently a good one.
Jonathan Wise, 19, was arrested earlier this month with two black and bloodshot eyes and in need of stitches for other injuries. He reportedly tried to rob the home of Norm Houston, according to police.
“I heard a thumbing noise on my garage door,” Houston told KFOR. “I swung open my back door and somebody was standing there.”
Wise, the suspected burglar, probably could have escaped injury and fled but he instead took a swing at Houston. It turned out to be a big mistake as this mugshot shows:
You know I ain’t the toughest, but I can hold my own,” Houston said.
Houston reportedly held the robber on the ground until the police arrived. Wise was later charged with burglary and taken to jail — after he went to the hospital for treatment of course.
I'm waiting for the FReepers who tell us that the right thing to do in this situation is to: (a) murder the burglar and (b) not call the police, to come onto the thread and criticize Norm Houston.
his eye looks worse than Rocky.
(”cut me Mick..”)
If the burglar is unarmed, Mr. Houston did the right thing. If the burglar had a weapon then, (a)murder the burglar is the correct answer.
Always call the police. Unless you live in a Blue state. More problems then it is worth. Better off throwing the corpse in the trunk and dropping him off somewhere.
In the situation given it would be impossible to murder the assailent.
Apparently he was NOT a Wise Ass. Just an Ass.
Incorrect. The answer is: shoot the burglar until he stops resisting.
My comment was related to some threads which postulated that once a burglar is subdued and is completely at your mercy, it is OK to then kill him.
In all fairness, in this case, this should be considered self-defense first and foremost, above burglary.
Had this martial arts coach been an elderly or infirm or just unlucky person, a punch to the face most certainly could have been fatal. This changes the complexion of the event considerably, from burglary to attempted murder, or at least aggravated assault.
And it most certainly is reasonable to use lethal force to defend yourself against such an attack.
The martial arts instructor is blameless in this case, as he was surprised by the burglar, who then attacked him, and he had only his hands and feet as quickly available weapons, which he used to great effect. And had he used lethal blows on the burglar, resulting in his demise, in the context of the fight, he would have been blameless.
He chose otherwise, and that is also a respectable choice.
Granted a serious felon may, after all is said and done, cost the taxpayers some $2m for his arrest, trial and incarceration for say 15 years; and by sparing the public such an expense with just a few inexpensive lead pellets, an honest citizen should be lauded.
Mr. Houston had the burglar completely at his mercy. He was certainly physically capable of murdering the helpless burglar, but he refrained and called police instead - demonstrating uprightness in addition to great physical courage.
Could not agree more. This is an almost perfect example of a situation in which that very principle best applies.
And had he used lethal blows on the burglar, resulting in his demise, in the context of the fight, he would have been blameless.
Exactly right.
Martial arts skill is a weapon that they can’t take away from you. If daily exercise is a part of your life, practice an exercise that may save your life, and give you increased flexibility and health in your old age. That’s my spiel.
Reminds me of the story of the two muggers in NYC who tried to rob ex-boxing champ Rocky Graziano. Graziano was in his fifties at the time and well past retirement. He still knocked the two stone cold. I saw a video of Archie Moore sparring when he was in his seventies. His hands were still lightning fast, and if it was your face in front of those fists, you’d be going down.
“My comment was related to some threads which postulated that once a burglar is subdued and is completely at your mercy, it is OK to then kill him.”
Once a burglar is subdued, that’s it. At that point shooting him for the sake of it is murder. I know some postulate that and in instances where the burglar is armed, it becomes an emotional issue. (He brought a gun into my house, I shot him, wounded him and now the police can have him)
Some would argue that, (he brought a gun into my house which means his intention was to kill my family and I, so regardless if I subdue him or not, he doesn’t deserve to live and I am going to put a bullet in his brain.)
If the burglar is armed, he is not leaving my property alive. End of story.
It’s amazing how the same bad advice gets continually passed around, right?
Just to clarify, “Once a burglar is subdued, that’s it. At that point shooting him for the sake of it is murder” is assuming the burglar was unarmed.
Agree.
I watched part of “Macgiver” on TV last night. Saw an old acquaintance of mine - Randall “Tex” Cobb - kick box the crap out of a couple of thugs in an alley. Randall didn’t need to “act” to do that stuff, either. Really a sweet guy and funny as hell, but I’d hate to be some fool who thought a guy like that could be mugged or the victim of a burglary if he caught you in his house.
I always love a story with a happy ending.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.