Previous Post
Next Post

Monica Deming and son Colton (courtesy

“From the moment she had called me until the moment police arrived was ten minutes and everyone was dead.” Read that quote again, pulled from an article on Let it soak in. In less than ten minutes, Texas law enforcement officer Jon Nielsen went from listening to his 32-year-old daughter’s frantic phone call describing a break-in to arriving at her house and discovering her lifeless body and that of her killer, ex-boyfriend Brandon Leyva . . .

Nielsen says a video camera inside the home captured Deming’s attack as Leyva burst through the back door.

“The man body slammed his way through the sliding glass door as he came in, and evidently she tried to run toward the Christmas tree but she was killed in a hail of gunfire,” Nielsen said.

The attack was not unexpected, as indicated by the existence of security camera footage . . .

Public records show Leyva did in fact have a history of family violence accusations from other women — two of whom filed protective orders against him in 2003 and 2012.

“We didn’t like his personality from day one, but we had no knowledge of his past,” Nielsen said.

In the days leading up to the tragic events, Nielsen says he and Deming purchased new security cameras that they planned to install Sunday as an added layer of protection.

They would never have a chance to install them.

At around midnight Saturday, Nielsen received a panicked call from his daughter saying someone was trying to break into her house and moments later the phone went silent.

No disrespect to Officer Nielsen or Monica’s eight-year-old orphaned son Colton, but security cameras are only good for deterrence and ex post facto evidence collection. An average burglary crew might think twice about entering a house with surveillance cameras (or they might wear masks). But a mentally unhinged attacker who’s got you – you – in their sights will not be deterred by anything. Forget about Islamic terrorists. That’s as bad as it gets.

Monica should have been armed. At home. At work. Everywhere. All the time. She should have shot Brandon Leyva as he tried to enter her residence. The only “other” solution to the problem of a psycho ex: hire armed bodyguards or go into hiding, neither of which is practically or economically feasible for most people.

As for gun control advocates’ argument that anyone accused of domestic should be disarmed, seriously? Do they seriously believe that a man who wants to kill his ex-girlfriend and then himself would be deterred from his goal by a law banning him from firearms possession? What world do they live in?

We live in a world where anyone can lose their life in seconds. Where proscriptive laws fail. Where the best defense against a lethal attack is a firearm. Where armed people who say “when seconds count the police are only minutes away” understand that it’s not a cutesy pro-gun slogan. It’s a warning to anyone who hears it that disarmament can be a death sentence.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Once the bad guy is there, ten minutes is all the time in the world. I don’t understand how the idiots in gun-control land can’t grasp that.

    • People for gun control do not care how many citizens are killed because they want the state, which they intend to control, to have a monopoly on violence.

  2. First order of business, arm yourself and know how to use your firearm. (Of course you must be willing to use it as well.) Second order of business, move more than 1000 miles away from your violent ex. There isn’t much else that you can do beyond that … at least not anything that is legal anyway.

    Note: moving 1,000 miles away is significant … especially if you manage to do it without any way for your ex to determine where you went.

    • If you insist on living close to your ex and he/she knows where you live, at least invest in major upgrades* to your doors and windows to guarantee that your ex cannot simply bust into your home. Make sure that it takes them at least 30 seconds to breach your home … ample time to get into position and be ready with a rifle or shotgun the moment your attacker finally manages to get through a door or window. It won’t be cheap. It will certainly be better than being dead.

      * This means, at a minimum, installing safety bars on your doors and polycarbonate films in your first floor windows — including sliding glass doors. Even better: install security doors with steel reinforcing plates to the framing around your doors and replace all of the glass in your windows and sliding glass doors with polycarbonate sheets.

    • As an employer, I am so concerned about violent ex-husbands and boyfriends that I have had panic alarms installed at all our offices and video surveillance at some. We have spent over $10,000 plus the additional monitoring fees. And I purchased the mouse gun that fits in my pocket.

      • All the rest of that stuff dictates your mouse gun should be backed by an AR in the closet. Alarms and video won’t stop crap. Pay for a couple employees’ training.

    • Sadly I must disagree with you there. I lost a good friend to a psycho ex bf. After she moved from IL to co. He tracked her down and shot her while she was on the phone with the police. About him.

    • Something to keep in mind for women in that situation who intend to leave their husband or live-in boyfriend: because of the risk of identity theft, many entities including your bank, insurer, credit card companies, etc. will send a physical letter to your old address confirming your new address and that you authorized the change in their system.

      The idea is that if you didn’t actually move, then you can receive this notice at your home and be alerted to the identity theft. Not all will indicate the new address in that notice, but all it takes is one for your your cover to be blown.

  3. I also take exception to the victim’s Dad saying the security cameras are some sort of protection. Give me a break. Thanks for pointing that out in your write-up.

  4. At least the perp saved the taxpayers the expense of a trial and a lifetime of incarceration.

  5. “Monica should have been armed. At home. At work. Everywhere. All the time.”

    This perfectly sums up the cultural divide we are now facing. We believe this and are acutely aware of the possible awful consequences but *they* don’t believe this. And, even worse, *they* refuse to believe it even in the face of the same awful consequences we urge people to plan for and prepare for.

  6. first, the anti-gun crowd has no sympathy for people who live in: low income areas; high crime areas; abusive relationships; single mothers; anyone who is most likely to be a victim of gun violence. evidence? inner city of any major metro area. but after hearing that a woman was killed by an ex, and that one or more children survived, the grabbers will gleefully point to the fact that if the woman had a gun, the children might have also been killed….by her inability to actually use a gun in self-defense. (not to mention that bad stuff only happens to people who are not like the lefty, liberal, hop-heads in the anti-gun movement).

  7. Unfortunately, you do not have all the facts. Monica was my sister in law so I can explain why she was not armed. During her 20’s, she made mistakes and ended up getting multiple DWI’s which resulted in a felony conviction and probation. As a result, she was not allowed to purchase or own a firearm. Monica has been sober for a while and we were so proud of the progress she had made. Our family is pro gun and I am an avid hunter. Please don’t post articles like this without at least a fact check.

    • It would illegal to run a background check on someone without their consent, and there would be no other way for someone to know that unless the information was volunteered. My heart goes out to you – every time I read a story like this I get a little sad and angry even thought I never knew the person – but it doesn’t change the facts. She might have been prohibited from owning a firearm legally, but that doesn’t stop thousands of gang-bangers or people with restraining orders from having them. It’s a very hard choice to make, because the consequences are severe, but if my sister were threatened by her ex I’d happily buy a gun and gift it to her even if I knew she couldn’t own it legally.

  8. Nigil, I had no clue this site recommends illegally owning firearms in Monica’s case. All I can saw us wow! My sister was a law abiding citizen. Her choice to not own a firearm was her choice to abide by the law according to her circumstance. I have emailed the administer to take down this story. I have not even obtained the courtesy of a response. My family supports guns and my family also follows the law. How do you draw the line in terms of supporting firearms illegally as you are?

    • Ms. Dorsey:

      I am so sorry that this happened to your sister in law, your family and you. I don’t have any idea how I can help, but if I can, I will.

      With you here, reading this, that’s the important thing right now.

    • Ms. Dorsey,
      Let me respond as a long time reader, only, with nothing to do with administering this website.
      1) I’m sorry for your loss
      2) This website does NOT in any way advocate breaking laws, ever. full stop.
      3) From time to time, readers will comment with stuff like Nigel said, and yes, he was clearly advocating breaking the law in your sister’s case. But again, no admin of this website is/was/ever will advocate breaking a law.
      4) The purpose of this website has always been the exact opposite of breaking the law, it’s about understanding what the laws are, as well as all other things firearm related.
      5) Unfortunately, knowing this guy was a real threat, even if she was prohibited from possessing a fire arm, I might have seriously considered the risks of complying with that aspect of the law. I honestly don’t know how I would have decided, but I’m sure, as your family probably did, consider it.
      6)) Again, I’m very sorry for your loss.

      • Thank you for your condolences. This is Monica’s sister commenting… This is the most heart wrenching thing our family has ever experienced.

        Trust me, my dad was a former Police Detective and my brother is an avid hunter, Monica was offered a gun. However, she did not want to break the law, possessing a gun. (as my husband Justin commented above). Do not get me wrong I fully support guns. I myself own a handgun and did even as a single woman. I feel like I’m on the same page as most gun supporters… Guns should be obtained only legally. Yes, criminals still can get their hands on guns, but we have to have laws in this country!

        I hate that people are making this a gun debate in my sister’s name. The real issue is not gun related. It’s stalking. Stalkers are manipulating and know how to stay on the fine line of the law. The man who murdered my sister was clever enough to know how far he could go with the harassment (after all he had done it atleast twice before we learned after Monica’s murder). He was certain to never directly threaten her. Again he was a professional at this. At every corner, we thought, ok, maybe he’s done and he’ll actually leave her alone. He promised multiple people he would. Our point in getting her story out is not to blame what the victim could’ve done. But instead to educate people on how this man stalked her, especially using social media. I do not feel like enough people are aware of social media stalking and how this man used a computer to stalk and harass her. Your daughters could be stalked in the same manner. We need to understand the profile of a stalker and their methods.

        No one knows what they would do in the moment of a blitz attack. I’ve spoke with the detective in Monica’s case and the attack itself happened in seconds! The 10 min referenced is the time it took my dad to drive there. If you happen to have a gun on you the moment a blitz attack happens and can fire faster than the other person, then yes a gun could save your life. It’s literally a shoot out at that point.

        I pray that my 8 year old nephew does not someday come across this article blaming his mom for not having a gun (as the article is titled, “It should’ve been a defensive gun use”) and that administer respects the victims family enough to take down this article knowing that she could not legally own a handgun. (Administer- Please contact me, out of respect for the victim’s family. I have emailed you. I’ve commented multiple times and no response. I am happy to share facts with you on the case and really get the real story out)

        In saying that Monica should have had a gun, you are saying she should’ve broken the law. The gun support community can not advocate this.

        • Thank you. I totally missed your point and you are correct, I stand corrected. This category of the site often uses situations to educate on what happened and why. I completely agree with your stance that now that we know she was a prohibited person, it’s inappropriate to advocate that she should have possessed a weapon. I’m sorry for any of the comments here that have been hurtful to read. God Bless you and your family.

          Foghorn – my vote is to take it down.

Comments are closed.