Stranger Helps Man Call 9-1-1 While He Holds a Burglar at Gunpoint

“She came down and helped me, helped a stranger with a gun pointing at someone else, so she’s pretty brave,” said Steven Davenport, recalling the incident that landed him with the memorable photo above.

This happened in the middle of the day on Friday when Mr. Davenport was working at his home in Yukon, Oklahoma. He heard his door chime but thought nothing of it. He pulled his garage door closed and went back to work.

Then, he heard it again. This time, when he pulled on the door handle, the door pulled back.

Mr. Davenport armed himself, opened the door to his garage, and looked inside. Immediately, he saw the intruder, identified as Jared Bennett, looking back at him.

Jared Bennett

“I anticipated either not seeing him, or seeing the back of him running away, but for him to be standing there staring at me… that really got my attention,” Mr. Davenport said to reporters. “At that point, I took my 45 and racked a round and told him he was going to die if he didn’t get on the ground.”

Mr. Davenport directed the intruder to crawl to the front yard and started calling for help. Either he didn’t feel comfortable reaching for his cell phone, or (more likely) he didn’t happen to be surgically attached to it.

“He started pleading, ‘I just wanted some water, please sir, let me go, I’ll never come back,’” said Mr. Davenport. But he didn’t feel like playing catch-and-release. “I just got mad. You don’t get to come in my house.”

Fortunately, it wasn’t long before a jogger came across the situation and was able to help, using her telephone to call 9-1-1 and also (since it’s 2018) snap a glamour shot…err, gather photographic evidence of Mr. Davenport and the perp.

“Yes, we have an emergency,” she reported calmly to the dispatcher. “There was a guy breaking into a house in our addition and he’s being held at gunpoint on the ground.”

Thanks to the healthy gun culture in Oklahoma, the jogger was informed enough to know what to do in this situation. The break-in was stopped without excess panic and without physical harm to anyone involved. The invader was taken into custody upon officers’ arrival. All things considered, this was an ideal defensive gun use.

Here’s the news video featuring the full interview with Mr. Davenport as well as the 9-1-1 recording. It’s worth a watch:

News9.com – Oklahoma City, OK – News, Weather, Video and Sports |

comments

  1. avatar BKKaumar says:

    Well done this is what keeps towns safe when POG and people in general take care of protecting themselves

  2. avatar Bloving says:

    That piece doesn’t look 3D printed…
    🤠

    1. avatar Jeff in CO says:

      WRONG! 3D printed Creedmor, which is why they caught the guy without firing a shot. The burglar knew that those heatseeking ghost-gun 3D Creedmor 1,000 rounds per second, armor piercing, non-micostamped, bullet button ghost untraceable clip-magazine bullets never miss their target (unless you hold it sideways link a gangster)! 😉

  3. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

    Fake news, you can tell because the homeowners shorts aren’t tacticool enough.

  4. avatar Hannibal says:

    Good thing the right jogger happened across the situation

    If the guy had got up to run away and the homeowner shot him he’d be facing some serious issues, even in 2nd-Friendly states. If you’re holding someone at gunpoint, do think about what you are gonna do if they run towards you… or away.

    1. avatar Hair Trigger says:

      Uhhhh, shoot him either in the chest or the back?
      Is that a trick question?

    2. avatar Jan says:

      In this circumstance he risked death with either move… He didn’t have the balls to move much less run. The good guy wins one…Great Day.

  5. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

    Other than the obvious, I.E.:
    1) There was an illegal breach of the resident. There is no talking, no repositioning to another area of the property. What ‘illegally’ happens in the resident, *legally* ends in the resident where the threat was initiated. As it is now, the perp and his/her court assigned attorney may paint a picture of their client in retreat of a person-with-a-gun chasing him/her. it is entirely possible; why take that chance?

    2) … racked a round? Um-m, ok –next item.
    3) “…and told him he was going to die if he didn’t get on the ground.”, This sounds like the perp is outside before you order him ( the perp) to crawl to the front yard.. You used the word ‘ground’ and not the word ‘floor’. Additionally, you went on record with the media describing how you told/informed the perp he was going to ‘die’ while pointing a loaded firearm at him (perp). In a situation such as this, that statement accompanied with your actions, as painted by the prosecution, could work against a defensive gun user; jurisdiction dependent

    3) Stop going on record with the media about an active criminal incident of which you are directly involved –until ‘you’ are absolutely sure, ‘you’ as the defender will not be charged in any way form/fashion! You have no clue what the resident prosecution has in mind.

    4) Whatever charges are attached to this actor, it will still result in ‘catch-and-release’ –at the tax payers expense –including your tax dollars– until the actor is released; assuming the actor/perp is found guilty and the perp’s court assigned attorney, paid for with your tax dollars, doesn’t find a way to make a case against you.

    Just a thought or two.

    1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      OK Typ-o There were two number three bullets. Please makethe adjustment. This broswer is not giving me the option to edit the post above.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Don’t talk to the cops, but don’t talk to the media either. Locally we had a guy who would have walked after a short investigation, but he gave a jailhouse interview to the local TV station. The story he told them did not match up to the story he told the cops when they first interviewed him.
      Needless to say the guy is now doing a term in the state pen.

    3. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      #2 I’m thinking Davenport’s smart enough to know that you can’t ND when their ain’t one in the chamber. And it looks like some pretty hard evidence to support not needing to.

      Also pretty sure Veronica Rutledge would approve.

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        While it is patently obvious that one cannot possibly ‘ND’ with no round chambered (at least without a great deal of effort put into it), it should be likewise patently obvious that one cannot ‘D’ at ALL with no round chambered. The whole POINT of carrying a defensive firearm is for that one instant in time when being able to ‘D’ is critical, and NOT being able to ‘D’ may very well kill you or someone you care about.

        THERE ARE NO MODERN HANDGUNS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO BE CARRIED WITHOUT A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER.

        Now, if you carry something from WWI or WWII, such as a pre-’80 1911 or a Parabellum, or even a Taisho 14, you should do two things: Don’t carry it. Oh, wait. . . that’s just one thing.

        If you cannot function at the minimally-competent level of carrying a gun with a (gasp!) live cartridge chambered without shooting yourself or other innocents, then perhaps you should not carry a firearm at all.

        You should also consider removing the battery and gasoline from your car until you are absolutely sure that you are going to drive it.

        Other than that, I have no strong opinions on the subject.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Anonnymous,

      Excellent analysis and commentary.

      And I had the exact same thought as one of your points:

      There is no … repositioning to another area of the property.

      As it is now, the perp and his/her court assigned attorney may paint a picture of their client in retreat of a person-with-a-gun chasing him/her.

      1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

        @uncommon_sense,

        I do have my moments …
        Thank you for actually reading.

    5. avatar Jan says:

      Oklahoma is a Castle Law state. This homeowner has the right to protect his family ,his home and his property with deadly force.

  6. avatar sound awake says:

    he clearly should have shot him because if its dangerous enough to pull your gun out theres enough danger to shoot the guy

    or wait wait no

    if he didnt shoot him then he shouldnt have pulled his gun out because if he didnt shoot him that means there wasnt enough danger to pull his gun out in the first place

    oh yeah and holding somebody at gunpoint is a ridiculously asonine thought that should never be aspired to or considered to be even a remote possibility

    of course im just parroting some of the mindlessly ignorant arguments that somehow have started to become fashionable around here as of late

    1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      @sound awake,

      Addressing/handling instances like this is probably (like many others), not his day job. He obviously either or both:
      1) Did not feel he was under the ‘immediate threat of great/grave bodily injury or death’.
      2) Did not have the mindset, in addition to –not having common knowledge that once your home is illegally breached (with the intruders on the domain side of the threshold), and the home owner ‘believes’ the actor(s) will to inflict bodily harm or death, by law (Castle Doctrine, in some states), you are legal to use deadly force. Again *Mindset*.

      Please, correct me where I have made incorrect statements. …

      I believe this DGUser is both lucky he was not physically injured or worse. Where there is one perpetrator, there is a very good possibility he has associates close by. This DGUser is also lucky to have not ‘yet’ been charged; subject to change.

  7. avatar RA-15 says:

    What a fucking joke this perp & fool are. I can’t tell which one is dumber. The guy with the gun looks like a weirdo , the other is just an idiot. IMO.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Wow, thank you for sharing such cogent, pertinent, and in-depth analysis.

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        When not providing third hand analysis RA can be found stocking shelves at Walmart.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          (snicker)

      2. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

        Some people, not necessarily RA-15, will post replies such as the one RA-15 posted. For me this is like going down in your basement, smelling natural gas, then to avoid a spark by using the light-switch, he instead strikes a match.

        Welcome to his version of ‘Freedom of Speech’

        1. avatar OldRogue says:

          “𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 ‘𝘍𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩’”
          There are no ‘versions’ of freedom of speech. There is only,
          “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

        2. avatar John in AK says:

          Luckily for us, we are not ‘Congress,’ nor are we any other branch of Government, so the strictures placed upon Government by the 1st Amendment do not apply to us.

          That means that a poster of inane comments is free to do so, in exercise of his 1st Amendment rights; We, in turn, are equally free to p*ss all over them, metaphorically speaking, using OUR 1st Amendment rights.

          I LOVE this country!

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    And then the cops showed up and killed the homeowner.

  9. avatar Paul McMichael says:

    Remember, unless we’re there (we weren’t) we’re all just armchair quarterbacks. Relocating? Sounds like he needed to if he was going to call for help. Wait! He could have knee capped him. He could then called for help after putting on a pot of coffee for L.E.O. when they arrived. Let me get my tounge out of my cheek for my next point. Sounds like all the information is coming from the media and they never screw anything up. What is that I feel in my cheek again?

    1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      @Paul McMichael ,

      I don’t look at it as being an armchair QB, or attorney. I provide an opinionated reply based on the posted text. “The Truth About Guns” (for me and my associates) is one to ‘provoke thought’ about posted incidents and/or scenarios.

      I.E. what would we do if this/that happened with us.

      Anyone else want some of this?

  10. avatar Paul McMichael says:

    Yes, I understand that Anonymous, but my point was that our opinions, based on the posted text, may be based on incomplete, or even erroneous, information. More importantly, there is the risk that others may act, in the real world, based on our opinions. I realized that every time I taught a C.C.W. class I could be on the ass end of a law suit one day. Do you? Even on this blog I’m not “anonymous.”

    1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      @Paul McMichael,
      You seem to feel like your post is under attack. That said, i fully understood your point, once again, that was my opinionated’ reply to your post; not saying any part of it was right/wrong or that I disagreed

      QUOTE– “More importantly, there is the risk that others may act, in the real world, based on our opinions.”
      If a grown person carrying/using a firearm or not, is incapable of making decisions on their own, exactly how would it (in any way) be the fault of a poster on an internet forum/blog ? –who does not get paid to give CCW instructions or directions– The person following something they read on an internet posting may want to validate that writing and its interpretation with an authoritative entity?

      Quote — “Do you?”
      This is why ‘ANONNYMOUS’ is insured.

      QUOTE– “Even on this blog I’m not “anonymous.””

      This comment/question comes what part of the posted article, or is this becoming personal from your end?

      1. avatar Paul McMichael says:

        No not personal at all. Just not afraid to attach my real name to my opinion. Let someone follow your advice and it go south. You can bet your ass the civil attorney will find you through that I.P. address and attach you to the suit. Just saying, be careful what you advise. It can come back to haunt you. Even if it’s on a blog.

  11. avatar Paul McMichael says:

    One question Anonymous. How many felons have you taken at gunpoint? It is a serious question. I just want to get a feel for your experience and expertise.

    1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      @Paul McMichael

      QUOTE– “One question Anonymous. How many felons have you taken at gunpoint? It is a serious question.”
      None, as a person responsible enough to carry a firearm, I do know how to steer clear ..

      QUOTE– “I just want to get a feel for your experience and expertise.”

      I’ll afford you first hand opportunity to experience ‘my’ experience. Here are the directions:

      1) Identify me, not to hard, get my IP –I’m the person attached to it.
      2) once you’ve located and traveled to my local
      2a) break into my home, carjack me

      Oh wait, you can’t. Your a law abiding citizen.

      1. avatar Paul McMichael says:

        Well, at least your honest. You’ve never confronted a felon in the commission of his crime. Yet, you feel qualified to critique the gentleman that did. Yes, I’m a law abiding citizen and would never breech the sanctity of your home. I, however, have taken felons at gun point. Lots of them. Yes, it was under the color of authority. Still, based on the limited (and unconfirmed information) I see nothing wrong with what the homeowner did. Would I have done it the same way? No, but that goes back to training. We all know most firearms owners don’t get any. Well, some CCW holders have to have some, but is usually very basic. Bottom line is, if you’ve never ‘seen the elephant’ don’t second guess those that have. Oh, and if you think you’re ready for it? It almost never goes the way you think it will. Better be fast on your feet. So to speak.

        1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

          Once again, I never disputed what he did, I merely pointed out issues or concerns. in the words of another previous poster:

          “you, do you”

          What I post here (sparingly) is our opinion based the contents of the article posted.

      2. avatar Paul McMichael says:

        For instance. You just invited me to locate you and get involved in an altercation. For arguments sake, let’s say I do. I kick in your door, or attempt to carjack you. You having superior martial skills reduce me to worm food. In the course if the investigation your social media is curry combed. It will be. Trust me. Fast forward. Prosecuting Attorney, “Mr. Anonymous, you invited, no challenged, the victim to find you, come to your home, putting your own family in danger, so that you could ambush him. All to fulfill a twisted fantasy you had to shoot someone, anyone, so you could see yourself as some kind of hero.” Anonymous, if you ever use deadly force they will tear your life apart, to greater or lesser degrees, depending on jurisdiction and circumstances. They will read every post you ever made here and take whatever they need out of context if it meets their needs. Be careful what you say.

  12. avatar Paul McMichael says:

    Wow! I just re-read your comments. You have a problem with the command, “Get on the ground?” What you you have him say? “Get on the garage floor?” I know, all those years I should have said, “Get on the bar floor, get on the convince store floor, get down on the parking lot, get down on the sidewalk, get down on the kitchen floor, (as opposed to any other room in the house), get down on the grass, (we may have been on a baseball field.) You sure you’re not a lawyer?

    1. avatar OldRogue says:

      I completely agree, Paul. Giving orders to a (perhaps) dangerous intruder is 𝙣𝙤𝙩 the time, nor the place to have a grammar Nazi breathing down your neck, even if he lives in your head. Anyway, I ‘ve seen hundreds of news and Youtube busts where cops have shouted, “get on the ground” when it wasn’t actually ‘ground.’

    2. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      @Paul McMichael,

      Paul, your brain is showing, You posted all the earlier replies to/about my previous post while you did not entirely, if at all ‘read’ and digest it? Not until now did you say:

      QUOTE — “Wow! I just re-read your comments. You have a problem with the command, “Get on the ground?”

      Perhaps you need to ‘re-read’ that post again –a few to ten more times. No where was it stated I had a problem with the command “Get on the ground?”. I clearly stated using the word ‘ground’ and not using the word ‘floor’ gives the appearance they were already outside.

      In today’s homes, there are floors. Granted he may have meant ‘floor’ instead of ground. However, This DGUser is making statements to main-stream media which the prosecutor will almost assuredly get a copy of, then use the DGUser’s words in every way ‘to’ and ‘after’ Sunday.

      How Paul McMichael could not understand that during the first reading is kind of odd.

      QUOTE — “What you you have him say? “Get on the garage floor?”

      Paul, What part of -the home was illegally breached by an unauthorized intruder, standing within the interior of the domain” are you not understanding?

      In addition, given your previous post on —August 1, 2018 at 21:31, QUOTE — “I realized that every time I taught a C.C.W. class …”,

      This tells me (ANONNYMOUS), and possibly others, that the time for talk was over once the home was breached (Castle Doctrine) in full effect!

      How could you even fix your face/brain to post such a statement about talking to someone, possibly a complete stranger who has illegally crossed the threshold in to the interior of your home?.

      I will not begin to question the validity of any creds you may have or your experience. However, allow me to suggest you stop using your real name online. If you like ANONNYMOUS-02 is available 🙂

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Paul,

      Anonnymous’ point about ground versus floor was that a prosecutor can twist and misrepresent anything that the homeowner said on camera to the local news.

      In other words Annonymous was merely pointing out that defenders who make public statements about a self-defense event could be seriously increasing their legal jeopardy.

      Once again we see the wisdom in exercising your right to remain silent.

      1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

        @uncommon_sense,
        I believe Paul was either trying to find out if I was of sound mind, being a parrot, or, perhaps he was just trying to start a fire. There was to much clarity in my post for any misinterpretation, unless English is not said person’s primary language. That is not the case with Paul. He (Paul), fully understood the words and the point of those posts.

  13. avatar Paul McMichael says:

    Thanks OldRouge. My definition of “the ground” is whatever is under your feet at the time.

    1. avatar KBonLI says:

      This has gotten so ridicules to the point where it was suggested (subliminally) to shoot the perp instead of holding him at gunpoint.
      I have never had to do what this guy did and hope to never be in that situation. IMO the only thing he did wrong was speak to the media. As to if the perp had gotten up and started running away, I would hope that he would have just let him go.

  14. avatar rt66paul says:

    Well, if he had used a gun in Creedmoor 6.5, he wouldn’t have to worry about those situations. The round is so awesome that it is always politically correct, so if the perp is shot with said round, it instinctively knows whether or not to hit the suspect.

  15. avatar Jan says:

    Had a similar incident a few years ago when at 11:30 at night a neighbor called and said someone was attempting to get in my 12 year old daughters widow. Got my gun, went out the back door and around to that side of the house. Looking through the fence I could see a man attempting to pry the window open and he had something that looked like it could have been a weapon. I deliberated shooting him right there. He then went to the front of the house. I went the other way and met him in the front. I drew down on him and he started to run. I fired a shot in the air and he hit the ground and started screaming. When I got to him he had a video camera. I held him at gun point, gun in his ear hole till the cops arrived. One of the officers asked how did I restrain myself and said he would have shot the guy. Anyway he was arrested and on his camera was video of the inside of my house through different windows and that of other young children in the neighborhood through their windows. Three days later the windows on my car were smashed out and the interior was severly slashed…. Shoulda shot him.

  16. avatar luigi says:

    takin out the white trash! good stuff

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email