Police

Oklahoma Man Cleared of Charges After Shooting Police Chief Three Times in the Chest, Didn't Know Cops Were Invading His Home

Cops thought a bomb threat was called in from his home but it wasn't.

|

Facebook

A man in Sentinel, Oklahoma won't face charges after shooting a police officer entering his home during a raid. At about 4 in the morning cops received a bomb threat against the city's Head Start program. They found no explosives there, but traced the 911 call to the man's house and decided to raid it. The man is known to authorities as a "gun enthusiast" and police were apparently aware of posts the man made comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and making a reference to ISIS (none of which is yet a crime) just before the 911 call was placed.

Fox News reports:

Dallas Horton, 29, of Sentinel, blasted Police Chief Louis Ross three times in the chest and once in the arm as Ross and his team swept through Horton's home early last Thursday. Ross survived thanks to his bullet-proof vest. But Horton, whom Sentinel's mayor described as a gun enthusiast and neighbors told reporters is a survivalist, is not facing any charges because an investigation by state police revealed he wasn't behind the threat and he did not know he was shooting at cops.

"For the past several hours, OSBI investigators have extensively interviewed the man," the state Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on its Facebook page. "Facts surrounding the case lead agents to believe the man was unaware it was officers who made entry."

Sentinel's mayor says he's known Horton his whole life, and doubts he's joined ISIS. The near tragedy ought to be a cautionary tale about trawling social media to follow weak leads and imagined threats.

The story caught the attention of liberal outlets like Gawker, which framed it as a white gun nut (and possible white supremacist) "getting away" with shooting a black cop. The race of the shooter and the cop, of course, ought to be irrelevant. The laws that protect residents when they exercise their constitutional right to defend themselves in their own home aren't contingent on the race of the resident or the potential invader. That majority black polities tend to have far stricter gun laws in place is a separate, but related problem. It makes it harder for residents of mostly poor communities to defend their homes. Coupled with drug laws that disproportionately affect the same communities, it makes the residents low-hanging fruit for an increasingly militarized police force. 

Advertisement

NEXT: You're Invited! The Impact of Vergara v. California on the Future of Education

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let’s review:

    1. Anonymous call threatening to blow up a “Head Start”?

    2. The building is searched.

    3. No explosives are found.

    4. Police trace the call to Dallas Horton’s residence.

    5. At some point in their thorough investigation, they search his Fakebook page and discover that *gasp* he owns guns.

    6. The police then make the perfectly rational decision to kick in his doors under cover of darkness and drag him from his bed.

    7. At no point do any of our brave public heroes decide to sanitize any of this with either a search or arrest warrant because “LOL @ Constitution.”

    8. Cops kick in his door at 4 AM, start sweeping his house as if it were Baghdad.

    9. Mr. Horton awakened from deep sleep, fails to recognize the Brave Public Heroes at proceeds to shoot the lead Brave Public Hero in the chest and arm.

    I know that I’m making the critical mistake of believing that the United States is a civilized country, but in such a country, wouldn’t the safer option, for all parties involved, have been to allow Mr. Horton an opportunity to voluntarily cooperate with the investigation before trying to go all “Call of Duty” on his ass?

    1. But then the cops won’t be able to shoot anyone. Why do you want to deny them the one thing that makes their lives enjoyable?

    2. And not use all that spiffy tactical gear with molle webbing and velcro?

      Fuck that shit.

  2. “Gawker, which framed it as a white gun nut (and possible white supremacist) “getting away” with shooting a black cop”

    Say it aint so.

    This was nice

    “Uncle Gerry-/Brendan O’Connor

    Do you think this guy waited to make sure the person was black before opening fire? Oh Gawker, you are the liberal Stormfront.”

    1. That is a kingly comment at the end.

    2. It’s amazing how they are constitutionally incapable of not being racists. They are literally unable to think about any subject in a non-racist way.

      Progressivism seems to mostly be a refuge for the most vile racists, gender partisans, and other species of haters. They’ve just gone all out to pretend they’re not by coming up with absurd philosophies and concepts to explain how they’re not racists/gender partisans/whatever while being complete and total racists/gender partisans/whatever even more than ever.

      1. It’s going to be hilarious when it turns out that Mr. Horton is a “White” Cherokee or something.

      2. It’s amazing how they are constitutionally incapable of not being racists. They are literally unable to think about any subject in a non-racist way.

        So Gawker is like a segment on NPR?

  3. It’s interesting that cops can kill people for no good reason and juries will be okay with it but you can kill a cop when they illegally storm your house and juries are okay with it. Progress?

    1. Baby steps, baby steps.

  4. So someone posts inflammatory things to his Facebook account just hours before the police raid, someone makes a 911 call traced to his house (which he denies making and the cops said he didn’t make), and people say the things posted are out of character for him.

    Sounds like someone decided to have the guy SWAT-ted, hacked his FB profile, and called the cops (routing the number to the guy’s phone).

  5. Speaking of how unbelievably appalling everything related to Gawker is…

    …I’ve gotten a weird POV explained to me a few times over the years –

    that Gawker’s essence is that *its not serious*, and that they’re largely ‘trolling themselves’ the entire time, and that the entire M.O. is one of giggling exaggerated-outrage…

    …yet, at the same time – most people’s expressed POV is 100% serious.

    Meaning – that what is written is in fact *what they really think*. Just expressed in a way they find amusingly over the top.

    The second time this was explained to me – I’m in a Williamsburg bar playing pool; I related some dumb shit i’d read on Gawker to a nearby millenial hipster douche, and they went, “Oh, but that’s Gawker, dude”….

    ….and I go, “But *that is what you really believe*”. And he goes, “Yeah, but i’m not going to defend that shit in real life“.

    apparently this made some sort of *sense* to him.

    part of I think has to do with the fact that Millenials *don’t like to debate stuff*; they emote and share, but really get uncomfortable when asked to ‘rationally justify’ any particular opinion.

    So Gawker is so much of a ‘safe space’ for Progs to vent their irrational bigotry. And they know that’s what its for. Its *not supposed to be rational*. And apparently anyone who confuses it as such is making a grievous error.

    1. So hipsters are just fin de si?cle decadents?

      We all know where this leads.

      1. I was just about to say Rand would have a field day with Gilmore’s post.

      2. I’m not sure i’d apply any historical parallel

        just that i find it particularly odd that some people feel that their strongest convictions are not to be ‘defended rationally’ so much as used an emotional stress-reliever

        1. I’m actually glad I read this. I don’t read, click on or spend any time on Gawker, but I hear about it here.

          Now you’ve helped me feel secure that I was never supposed to take it seriously anyway.

          I will now proceed not clicking, reading or spending time going to Gawker.

          In fact, as I type this, I’m practicing not going to Gawker.

    2. Its why irony, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

      Irony is how you distance yourself from something.

      If you distance yourself reflexively from everything, then you’re left just . . . empty.

  6. I think the interesting aspect is when the victims are unarmed they are killed on site by cops. When the victim gets a couple of shots off first the cops are all like “whoa, everybody relax. Lets talk about this. We are cops…don’t shoot please.”

    methinks the tactics cops use are only for the non dangerous…when faced with a real threat the cops act more appropriately.

  7. Well, at least he didn’t have to go through the hell that Cory Maye endured.

  8. traced the 911 call to the man’s house and decided to raid it.

    So who made the call?

    Or did they botch the trace?

    And what was the big honkin’ hurry, once they figured out there was no bomb, anyway?

    1. They thought he might flush his phone down the toilet if the knocked politely.

    2. Classic swatting tactic. Someone want to kill this guy, and he defended his life.

  9. When did Reason start providing nut licks?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.