Parrot saying 'hello' wakes man who shoots burglar

**kfrost06** · 05-20-2008, 08:48 AM

A parrot saying "hello" woke his Texas owner up to find, and then shoot, a burglar in his garage, local media reports.

"I guess you could call him a stool pigeon," owner Dennis Baker told the Dallas Morning News.

It was the fifth time the home, which is also used as a locksmith shop, was burgled this month.

So when Baker woke to the sounds of Salvador, his Mexican Red-headed parrot, saying "hello, hello" he knew something was wrong.

Baker grabbed his gun and shot the burglar in his garage. The man died at hospital, police said.

"I have tools in my garage, my house and my van," Baker said. "They were coming here like they owned the place. I hate what happened, but somebody has to do what's necessary."

The bird also chirped "hello" when police arrived, Baker said.

"Sometimes he says 'hi' but you can't get him to speak on cue," Baker said. "He has a mind of his own."

Texas has recently eased restrictions on people confronting intruders in their homes, businesses or cars. They are no longer obligated to retreat before responding with deadly force.

But police told the paper that this was not the reason behind a recent spate of home or business owners shootings intruders.

"We get them over the year from time to time," Sergeant Larry Lewis said.

Neither Baker nor the police were immediately available for comment.

**kfrost06** · 05-20-2008, 08:50 AM

Simply lesson, don't commit burgary in Texas!

Go to DC where handguns are illegal and you can sue the homeowner if he trys to stop you.

**gixxerboy1** · 05-20-2008, 10:58 AM

am i the only one that sees the irony that he is a locksmith and his place was broken into 5 times in a month. Oh let me hire him

**thegodfather** · 05-20-2008, 11:56 AM

Do we have any liberals/democrats who want to chime in and tell us how wrong this is, how this poor burglar has rights, and how he is a product of the system we created and we are responsible for his behavior? No takers, alrighty then, one more criminal 6 feet under where he belongs, sounds good in my book. Maybe he should goto D.C., or other CRIMINAL ENABLING ZONES, where there are firearm restrictions that force people to become victims.

**wantmoremass** · 05-20-2008, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

am i the only one that sees the irony that he is a locksmith and his place was broken into 5 times in a month. Oh let me hire him

LOL at this.

**DeputyLoneWolf** · 05-20-2008, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Do we have any liberals/democrats who want to chime in and tell us how wrong this is, how this poor burglar has rights, and how he is a product of the system we created and we are responsible for his behavior? No takers, alrighty then, one more criminal 6 feet under where he belongs, sounds good in my book. Maybe he should goto D.C., or other CRIMINAL ENABLING ZONES, where there are firearm restrictions that force people to become victims.

^^ Amen.

**BgMc31** · 05-20-2008, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Do we have any liberals/democrats who want to chime in and tell us how wrong this is, how this poor burglar has rights, and how he is a product of the system we created and we are responsible for his behavior? No takers, alrighty then, one more criminal 6 feet under where he belongs, sounds good in my book. Maybe he should goto D.C., or other CRIMINAL ENABLING ZONES, where there are firearm restrictions that force people to become victims.

Ridiculous, retarded assumption! And I take offense to it! There are dems and libs who support 2nd admendment rights and are equally tough on criminals. Law enforcement is not simply a conservative trait. Don't be ridiculous!

**BgMc31** · 05-20-2008, 07:20 PM

Godfather,

Have you been to DC? And I'm not talking about the tourist attraction areas? None of the affluent live in DC. Most, if not all, reside in Virginia or Maryland. If you've ever been to these areas I'm sure you wouldn't support arming complete housing projects where law enforcement can barely patrol as it is.

**Tock** · 05-20-2008, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Do we have any liberals/democrats who want to chime in and tell us how wrong this is, how this poor burglar has rights, and how he is a product of the system we created and we are responsible for his behavior?

Why do you ask?
I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any liberals/democrats to whine the way you'd like them to.

Tsk tsk tsk . . .

And by the way, where did you get this article from? I read this in the paper edition of the Dallas Morning News about a year ago . . .

**BgMc31** · 05-20-2008, 09:19 PM

double post......

**DeputyLoneWolf** · 05-21-2008, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Ridiculous, retarded assumption! And I take offense to it! There are dems and libs who support 2nd admendment rights and are equally tough on criminals. Law enforcement is not simply a conservative trait. Don't be ridiculous!

Go ahead and take offense lol. Not simply a conservative trait but at least 97% conservative. next time you see a cop just ask them. Out of the approx 70 guys in my dept. 4 are liberal... This is a fact.

**thegodfather** · 05-21-2008, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Godfather,

Have you been to DC? And I'm not talking about the tourist attraction areas? None of the affluent live in DC. Most, if not all, reside in Virginia or Maryland. If you've ever been to these areas I'm sure you wouldn't support arming complete housing projects where law enforcement can barely patrol as it is.

So because many of the people there are of lower socioeconomic backgrounds they aren't entitled to defend their lives? I have no problem with arming any of those people so long as they have a clean criminal background and would therefore be able to legally posess,own, and carry a firearm. I think it is naive to assume only the affluent should be able to be armed. The people living in those projects have just as much of a right to the 2nd amendment as any other person. They live in high crime areas and should be able to defend themselves if need be. The police are obviously not doing a good enough job, and that is pretty much universal, the police cannot be everywhere at everytime and there are circumstances when citizens need to be able to defend their lives. As stated previously, "outlawing" guns does not take them out of the criminals hands, only out of the law abiding citizens.

**kfrost06** · 05-21-2008, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

So because many of the people there are of lower socioeconomic backgrounds they aren't entitled to defend their lives? I have no problem with arming any of those people so long as they have a clean criminal background and would therefore be able to legally posess,own, and carry a firearm. I think it is naive to assume only the affluent should be able to be armed. The people living in those projects have just as much of a right to the 2nd amendment as any other person. They live in high crime areas and should be able to defend themselves if need be. The police are obviously not doing a good enough job, and that is pretty much universal, the police cannot be everywhere at everytime and there are circumstances when citizens need to be able to defend their lives. As stated previously, "outlawing" guns does not take them out of the criminals hands, only out of the law abiding citizens.

Very well put. Race or income should have zero bearing on your rights. I say if anything they are even more entitled to level the playing field. They live in high crime and poor policing, let them have guns and watch how quickly the criminals retreat. The crooks already carry them why not let the hard working families that want to protect their homes have one?

**BgMc31** · 05-21-2008, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by DeputyLoneWolf

Go ahead and take offense lol. Not simply a conservative trait but at least 97% conservative. next time you see a cop just ask them. Out of the approx 70 guys in my dept. 4 are liberal... This is a fact.

Absolutely untrue! Here in Vegas (Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson) all endorse democrat candidates and the vast majority when polled consider themselves moderate democrats.

**BgMc31** · 05-21-2008, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

So because many of the people there are of lower socioeconomic backgrounds they aren't entitled to defend their lives? I have no problem with arming any of those people so long as they have a clean criminal background and would therefore be able to legally posess,own, and carry a firearm. I think it is naive to assume only the affluent should be able to be armed. The people living in those projects have just as much of a right to the 2nd amendment as any other person. They live in high crime areas and should be able to defend themselves if need be. The police are obviously not doing a good enough job, and that is pretty much universal, the police cannot be everywhere at everytime and there are circumstances when citizens need to be able to defend their lives. As stated previously, "outlawing" guns does not take them out of the criminals hands, only out of the law abiding citizens.

Typical conservative, taking what I said out of context! NO THE MORE AFFLUENT SHOULDN'T BE THE ONLY ONES WHO SHOULD BE ARMED! What I'm saying is this. If you arm inner city project developments or any ghettos, barrio, or any other high crime area, you are asking for regular gun violence. Criminals in those areas don't care if others have guns or not. More guns in those areas (whether legal or otherwise) will mean more gun violence. That's just common sense.

**BgMc31** · 05-21-2008, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

So because many of the people there are of lower socioeconomic backgrounds they aren't entitled to defend their lives? I have no problem with arming any of those people so long as they have a clean criminal background and would therefore be able to legally posess,own, and carry a firearm. I think it is naive to assume only the affluent should be able to be armed. The people living in those projects have just as much of a right to the 2nd amendment as any other person. They live in high crime areas and should be able to defend themselves if need be. The police are obviously not doing a good enough job, and that is pretty much universal, the police cannot be everywhere at everytime and there are circumstances when citizens need to be able to defend their lives. As stated previously, "outlawing" guns does not take them out of the criminals hands, only out of the law abiding citizens.

Typical conservative, taking what I said out of context! NO THE MORE AFFLUENT SHOULDN'T BE THE ONLY ONES WHO SHOULD BE ARMED! What I'm saying is this. If you arm inner city project developments or any ghettos, barrio, or any other high crime area, you are asking for regular gun violence. Criminals in those areas don't care if others have guns or not. More guns in those areas (whether legal or otherwise) will mean more gun violence. That's just common sense.

Of course you don't mind arming those areas because you don't live in those areas. I guarantee if you ask the vast majority of those living in those areas they will tell you they would prefer no guns at all to having guns of their own. Why? Because these people have seen the direct results of gun violence on a regular basis.

**DeputyLoneWolf** · 05-22-2008, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Absolutely untrue! Here in Vegas (Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson) all endorse democrat candidates and the vast majority when polled consider themselves moderate democrats.

Wrong, most police unions are for democratic candidates. If you ask the patrol officers it is a different story.

And I would like to see the source of your poll.

**kfrost06** · 05-23-2008, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Absolutely untrue! Here in Vegas (Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson) all endorse democrat candidates and the vast majority when polled consider themselves moderate democrats.

Originally Posted by DeputyLoneWolf

Wrong, most police unions are for democratic candidates. If you ask the patrol officers it is a different story.

And I would like to see the source of your poll.

**gixxerboy1** · 05-23-2008, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

What I'm saying is this. If you arm inner city project developments or any ghettos, barrio, or any other high crime area, you are asking for regular gun violence. Criminals in those areas don't care if others have guns or not. More guns in those areas (whether legal or otherwise) will mean more gun violence. That's just common sense.
.

Maybe just get them parrots instead

**DeputyLoneWolf** · 05-23-2008, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

Unions = support democratic candidates. ALL unions wether LE or not.

But if look closer the largest percentages of LE are conservative and for conservative pro gun/ second amendment candiadates.

**kfrost06** · 05-23-2008, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by DeputyLoneWolf

Unions = support democratic candidates. ALL unions wether LE or not.

But if look closer the largest percentages of LE are conservative and for conservative pro gun/ second amendment candiadates.

Now that makes sense! I am sorry, I just thought you were restating what he said, now I feel like the fool.

**DeputyLoneWolf** · 05-23-2008, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

Now that makes sense! I am sorry, I just thought you were restating what he said, now I feel like the fool.

No prob

**BgMc31** · 05-23-2008, 05:04 PM

being pro 2nd amendment doesn't automatically make you conservative. I'm pro-gun, avid hunter, but I'm as liberal as they come. That's a tired argument.

**DeputyLoneWolf** · 05-23-2008, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

being pro 2nd amendment doesn't automatically make you conservative. I'm pro-gun, avid hunter, but I'm as liberal as they come. That's a tired argument.

Yes but you must admit that you are in the minority of 2nd Amendment supporters.

**Tock** · 05-23-2008, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by DeputyLoneWolf

Unions = support democratic candidates. ALL unions wether LE or not.

Mon petite, you do not know history . . . Unions have indeed supported Republicans in the past:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...kabee_edwards/
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent | August 30, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of the biggest U.S. trade unions made an unusual dual presidential endorsement of Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Mike Huckabee on Thursday, while Democrat John Edwards won the 2008 backing of the carpenters' union.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1940.htm

In 1972, the Teamsters backed President Nixon, a Republican, but stayed neutral in 1976. It supported Ronald Reagan, another Republican, in 1980 and 1984, and endorsed Bush's father in 1988. In 1992, however, the union abandoned Bush and joined the AFL-CIO in endorsing Democrat Bill Clinton. It did not support Clinton's 1996 re-election, and also rejected GOP nominee Bob Dole.

**DeputyLoneWolf** · 05-24-2008, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Live Hard Lift Hard

Because then there would be more guns in one area for children and theves to steal and commit more crimes. More guns in those areas means more problems no matter how you look at it.

Wow that was about the most ignorant and stupid sentence I have ever heard. This is totally not true. I rarely take a case for a stolen gun. I have responded to a lot more instances when law abiding people have merely displayed one and stopped a violent situation before it started.

You need to talk to the people that know the facts and don't just listen to the media and anti gunners.

**DeputyLoneWolf** · 05-24-2008, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Mon petite, you do not know history . . . Unions have indeed supported Republicans in the past:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...kabee_edwards/
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent | August 30, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of the biggest U.S. trade unions made an unusual dual presidential endorsement of Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Mike Huckabee on Thursday, while Democrat John Edwards won the 2008 backing of the carpenters' union.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1940.htm

In 1972, the Teamsters backed President Nixon, a Republican, but stayed neutral in 1976. It supported Ronald Reagan, another Republican, in 1980 and 1984, and endorsed Bush's father in 1988. In 1992, however, the union abandoned Bush and joined the AFL-CIO in endorsing Democrat Bill Clinton. It did not support Clinton's 1996 re-election, and also rejected GOP nominee Bob Dole.

Hmm sounds like they were just trying to get support with the Republican union memeber to me. Huckabee didn't have much of a chance to start with.

Why yes Tock, I actually do. Of all the political campaigns I have seen since the early 90's all of the unions support democratic candidates such as Gray Davis, Diane Feinstein, and a slew of others. I was in a union at my last job and we were constantly bombarded with mailings and flyers left at work say the Democrats were on our side and if we did not vote for them we were against the "working person."

If you have to dig up news stories from that long ago then you need to look at the present becasue thats where we are