All choked up at WWE Raw on Jan. 29, 2024. WWE Image
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

A rifle-toting burglar stormed a Midland, Texas, home over the weekend in an effort to rob its occupants, but discovered too late it was going to take more than the sight of a firearm to scare the homeowner into giving over the goods. Police responded to a call for a “disturbance with weapons,” but by the time they got there, they found someone dead, and it wasn’t the homeowner.

Police reported that upon arrival at the scene they found 37-year-old George Samuel Butler dead. Butler, the intruder, allegedly entered the home “by force with a rifle” when the unidentified homeowner, refused to submit and, despite not being armed himself, “placed the suspect in a choke hold” until he expired.

For Butler, it appears a fitting demise in that he got what he attempted to deliver during a previous home invasion in July 2022. In that instance, the Midland Reporter-Telegram, reports the Midland Police Department was called to a scene where a woman reported Butler had kicked in her door and entered her home. When Butler refused to exit the home after police arrived, they entered the residence and attempted to place him in handcuffs.

Butler resisted, placing an officer in a headlock and bloodying his nose before officers were able to control him and secure him with handcuffs.

Guess that’s two things Butler didn’t learn: don’t break into houses and place the pressure of a chokehold a little lower than the head. Fortunately, those lessons don’t matter now as Butler will no longer present a threat to anyone in Midland or anywhere else for that matter.

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

88 COMMENTS

  2. Perfect example of the use of disparity of force. The intruder carried a rifle to intimidate. One person inside the house used the deadly force of a chokehold, intended to kill, rather than intent to intimidate. The person in the home answered trespassing with death.

    I wonder if the person doing the killing had liability insurance to cover the deadly use of hands and arms? If not, second crime.

    If people don’t understand that no property is worth the taking of a life, lock ’em up!

    • That has to be one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen written anywhere. You were not present during the event so your assumption of intimidation only is a failure since the article also indicated he had been physical with an officer in a prior encounter and injured him while having to be restrained by a couple of other officers.

      Furthermore, you couldn’t possibly know what this man may have done ultimately since you are not a mind reader. Just for the record the rules of engagement in a situation like this can be anything from simply a person entering your home and you feared for your life, display of a weapon. or pointing a weapon at the victim, or threatening them with physical harm are all legitimate reasons to use whatever force is needed to end the threat.

      And as far as property goes, I disagree with you. Anyone stupid enough to think its OK to steal someone else’s property should suffer whatever consequence come their way. There has never been a law until recently in blue cities where they condone the steal of up to $900 worth of merchandize from a store. That is the most ridiculous concept I have ever heard in my life and I believe most non-criminals in this country would agree with me except for the bleeding-heart liberals like yourself who only start complaining when YOUR OX gets gored like those in the sanctuary cities when they become the victims of the homeless and illegals.

      So go take a hike.

    • The homeowner is a real hero. He stopped a burglar, robber, potential murderer, thief, crook, prior felon – The owner just acted in reasonable self defense! and the dumb crook got what he deserved. Simple. no legal issues here. Great defensive maneuver and great timing.

      • But I’m sure that despite our
        Right to Bare Arms, and to use them, this will probably count as a gun death.

    • Ummm…if the local prosecutor is an extreme dirtbag himself, he might file a manslaughter claim against the homeowner.

      How?

      Well at some point, the gun-slinging lunatic was unconscious, no longer a threat but not yet dead. So either the homeowner intended to kill AFTER the nutcase was no longer a threat, or failed to realize he was no longer a threat and continued the throat pressure too long.

      This being Texas this is thankfully unlikely but…let’s say a prosecutor tried it.

      Best defense would occur if the baddie with a gun whacked the homeowner upside the head at some point. Now he’s mentally impaired *because of the baddie’s actions* and basically, the baddie killed himself.

      If that’s not a factor, the best answer is “homeowner feared for his life because of the gun and *reasonably* feared letting go of this butthole’s head”. You STILL have a “whoops I held on too long” problem but it’s likely the homeowner didn’t know much about how chokeholds work, how to do one without killing. (It’s actually easy to accidentally kill with a chokehold, so it’s deadly force, BUT the butthole had a rifle so deadly force is on the menu.

      If the homeowner had significant training in chokeholds from…I dunno, the local MMA dojo (?) he might still be in trouble…

      • Well, there is also the possibility that during the application of the ‘choke hold” the windpipe was crushed and he was not savable short surgical intervention.

      • “Ummm…if the local prosecutor is a n extreme dirtbag himself dimwitocrat, he might file a manslaughter claim against the homeowner.

        FIFY

    • I was born with only my labor and I spend my entire life exchanging that labor for property.

      How is taking one’s property without consent or compensation any different than taking one’s labor without consent or compensation?

      It is a human right to defend both your labor and your property with lethal force.

      • “How is taking one’s property without consent or compensation any different than taking one’s labor without consent or compensation?”

        The perp took nothing. Trespass does not warrant death. Without taking the first round from the perp, the homeowner could not know if he was in danger of death, or grievous bodily harm.

        • “Without taking the first round from the perp, the homeowner could not know if he was in danger of death, or grievous bodily harm.”

          No one with above room temperature IQ believes this.

          Any reasonable man knows when his life is in danger. Do you really need to take a bullet to know that an armed trespasser means you harm?

    • Your property might not be worth the taking of a life. Mine is. Anyone who enters my home should know that he is risking his life. By doing so, he is declaring that my property is worth more than his life. I agree with him.

      • “Moral: Don’t bring a rifle to a choke-hold fight.”

        There ya’ go.

        If you wanna shoot, shoot; don’t talk.

    • “If people don’t understand that no property is worth the taking of a life, lock ’em up!”

      My opinion: Sam I Am, you misrepresent the issue.

      The issue is that the armed intruder gave the homeowner reason to fear for his own life and the lives of others (The report refers to “occupants”). The homeowner then proceeded, appropriately, to defend himself and the other occupants. The intruder’s rifle changed this episode from a simple robbery to a matter of life or death. That’s the difference.

      • “My opinion: Sam I Am, you misrepresent the issue.”

        Not really. Just cleaning the rust from my crybaby leftist persona.

    • Strange comment, can’t tell if it’s satire here or not. But if people don’t think their lives are worth as much as the property they’re trying to steal, they’re just helping the natural selection process along.

      • “Strange comment, can’t tell if it’s satire here or not.”

        Me either; imagine my confusion.

    • Texas law does not penalize lethal force in defense of persons and property from felony criminal acts. Both apply here. Further, Texas law does not penalize lethal force in defense of a criminal entering a residence after dark, under the presumption that the residence is likely to be occupied after sunset and the criminal knows that.

      I agree that property is not worth dying over. The criminal’s choice was a decision that property was worth dying over.

      • “Texas law does not penalize lethal force in defense of persons and property from felony criminal acts.”

        That’s the problem, right there. Texas is a whole ‘nuther country. And it should have stayed that way.

  3. People are simply getting tired of all the lawlessness and insanity. Our so-call leaders have failed rather miserably to keep the peace.

    Gun laws become worthless when guns are not even part of the equation. But people are only going to take just so much.

  4. The homeowner should have known that a choke hold was unnecessary.

    A knee placed between the perp’s shoulders would have been enough to kill him. Just ask George Floyd uh, Derek Chauvin.

    • Yes, all those violent felons who are dying by the hands of our fine police – don’t do the crime and don’t resist, follow the officers orders and put your criminal butt on the ground, hands behind your back and you can tell it all to the Judge.

      In this case a person who has an absolute right to use lethal force in defending his home, family and property did just that. Once the perp enters the home illegally, even if not armed, they are at risk of being killed and justly so.

      This perp came fully loaded and ready to kill. He also has prior experience of harming people whose homes he entered illegally.

      I say great move, give the homeowner a medal!

      • and you can tell it all to the Judge.

        and as happened with this guy after his prior home invasion and deadly-force assault on to coppers, da judge let him go. How ELSE was he out in public without a custodian?

        Someone with clout needs to go have chat with that judge and ask him HOW IT IS that this miscreant WAS loose in public.

  6. There is a guy in NYC (as I r3ecall) who took down an attacker with a choke hold, a hold he claims lasted less than 30 seconds. But the perp expired, and do-gooder is facing manslaughter charges. So if you want to do that, just make sure it happens in your home where the castle doctrine will likely protect you.

  7. I love to read stories like this because it means that the deceased can’t get the benefit of no justice from Leftist Judges and Prosecutors. I once worked with a man who had knife scars on his body from knife fights and he once said to me, “If you play the game you may have to pay the consequences”. I have never forgotten that, and I was a teenager at the time.

  8. @jwm
    “And if you don’t know, how can we? 😉”

    With no mystery to solve, what is life for, grasshopper?

  13. Too good and too ironic to pass this one up. Far Right now has egg on their faces.

    A civil rights group has joined the fight to keep Donald Trump from holding office again with an argument that gives the U.S. Supreme Court a dose of their own medicine.

    The non-profit Public Rights Project (PRP) filed an amicus brief on behalf of historians who argue that the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause should apply to the former president, and that the framers of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment clearly intended that the provision would not only apply for former Confederates but to leaders of future rebellions, reported The Guardian.

    “The brief gives the Supreme Court’s originalists, who believe the constitution should be interpreted as it would have been in the era it was written, a taste of their own medicine,” the publication reported. “Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are self-declared originalists while Samuel Alito has described himself as a ‘practical originalist.”

    REALTED: This Capitol Police officer has a new mission

    PRP president Jill Habig pointed out that the U.S. Capitol was not breached during the Civil War but was on Jan. 6, 2021, and she said the attack was instigated by Trump and carried out by his followers with the intention of overturning American democracy to keep him in power.

    “The evidence that we have seen and heard and watched with our own eyes over the last few years has made it quite clear that President Trump lost an election in 2020 and has spent the months and years since then trying to overturn the results of that election in a variety of ways, including people marching to the Capitol and invading the Capitol,” Habig said. “It’s difficult to argue with a straight face that these activities don’t qualify for Section 3.”

    https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-insurrection-2667170651/?u=3b00243f923b187b1dd5c9552213102c014f8ee2e8a986d1f0184019eb7d5e5a&utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feb.5.2024_5.32pm

    • If President Trump is guilty of insurrection why was he not charged or convicted of insurrection?

      The only entity that can try and convict a sitting president is congress via impeachment in the house and trial in the senate. Any other prosecution violates the separation of powers and the supremacy clause of the constitution.

      The head of the executive branch can ONLY be held accountable by Congress as is described in the Constitution.

      Donald Trump was a sitting president on January 6th. If congress felt his actions were criminal in nature, the house could have impeached him on January 7th. They did not.

      Our public education system is an embarrassment. Most of our citizens graduate high school and have little understanding of our Constitution.

      • Not only was Trump not charged with insurrection, as I recall none of those arrested after Jan 6 were charged either. Or if there were, only a very few. Meanwhile of course, Capitol Police officer Byrd committed 2nd degree murder on film.

        Weird outcome. Didn’t we all witness the insurrectionists taxi those F-16s into the Capitol area?

        • “Didn’t we all witness the insurrectionists taxi those F-16s into the Capitol area?”

          John, you make an interesting point. How does one engage in insurrection without weapons? Are we really to believe that the seat of our government could be overthrown by a group of individuals armed with Trump flags and selfie sticks?

  16. As much as I applaud the outcome, unfortunately this story will be twisted by the anti 2A crowd as “evidence” that you don’t need an evil gun to defend yourself.

    • I was wondering if anyone would note that.

      Shoot ’em in the leg, but preferably take them on with your bare hands.

    • If they notice it, they will twist anything to their advantage. That’s what dishonest actors do.

      In cases like this, if they note it and advance that argument then it cannot be avoided and therefore should be targeted for ridicule in the most bombastic ways that don’t stray into gross hyperbole which is counterproductive.

      It is the cases where it can be avoided in advance that we should pay attention. That mostly comes down to a form of messaging discipline which, before someone jumps in and suggests otherwise, is quite different than a lie of either omission or commission.

      Copias eorum in ea via nunc capiemus should be the aim at all times, which kinda precludes serious concern about those things entirely outside of our control.

  17. It would be interesting to have more details on this.

    Some chokes you can almost call this criminal (because the person doing the choking had full control, the guy getting choked has zero chance, and the guy choking knows that they put the guy out before intentionally holding the choke/strangle longer quite specifically to kill them, which kinda makes it like an “anchor shot” legally) while with others it would be almost impossible to charge the guy who did it because of how the choke works.

    Anyone who’s ever played with a rolling loop choke (or just a loop choke in some cases) vs an RNC knows what I mean. Done right the person getting choked often doesn’t even have time to tap.

    • “It would be interesting to have more details on this.”

      As far as the homeowner is concerned, it happened *in* their home, by an armed man, in Texas.

      Unless they were past intimate companions with a joint child, I seriously doubt there’s a problem here…

      • Personally, I find it an interesting academic question. I don’t much care the outcome of this particular case one way or another past that. It’s just an interesting area of self-defense because it’s not as clear-cut as many others.

        That said…

        Texas allows for someone in their home to willfully execute someone who the homeowner knows no longer presents any threat to anyone?

        I kinda doubt that. As I recall Texas allows “reasonable force” up to and including lethal force in these cases.

        I’m fairly confident that this means that they don’t allow you to wound someone with a gunshot, walk up, disarm them, tie them up and then put one in their head or finish them off with a knife or something.

        In some cases, using a choke would amount to the same thing (outside rare cases where the person being choked had a contributing medical condition that the “choker” can’t know of).

        Using an RNC, just as an example, would fall into this category. You already have full physical control of the person, you know you put them out and then you said “You know what, fuck this guy, I’m going to end him” and held the RNC specifically for that purpose even though you knew you had no reason to.

        It’s pretty hard to construe that as being self defense or “reasonable force”. It’s not like the cases of 20 years ago where a high schooler throws a punch and just so happens to kill the other *kid* with what amounts to an unlucky shot. You would, in this case, know exactly what you were doing and you would proceed from step to step by choice.

        Further, in this example, it’s not a collar choke from the front where you can argue the other person can resist via punches or whatever. Nor is it something that comes on fast enough to really say “Oops, I didn’t know”.

        In this particular example I’d basically say the person doing it is tiptoeing up to the line of actual murder pretty much regardless of what the other guy did because, again, the other guy is already incapacitated and *in custody* before you decide to kill him and it’s damned hard to argue that you didn’t simply make that decision and then do it.

  20. (to get around the ‘sensitive places’ unconstitutional move by New York) > Times Square Is Now Classified As A “Government Building” To Restrict Your Ability To Carry.

  22. There is nothing wrong with killing to protect private property. Since the State will kill you to protect State property.
    If private citizens can use a choke hold. Then the police can too.

  23. 2nd attempt to post

    Your comment is awaiting moderation
    Too good and too ironic to pass this one up. Far Right now has egg on their faces.

    A civil rights group has joined the fight to keep Donald Trump from holding office again with an argument that gives the U.S. Supreme Court a dose of their own medicine.

    The non-profit Public Rights Project (PRP) filed an amicus brief on behalf of historians who argue that the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause should apply to the former president, and that the framers of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment clearly intended that the provision would not only apply for former Confederates but to leaders of future rebellions, reported The Guardian.

    “The brief gives the Supreme Court’s originalists, who believe the constitution should be interpreted as it would have been in the era it was written, a taste of their own medicine,” the publication reported. “Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are self-declared originalists while Samuel Alito has described himself as a ‘practical originalist.”

    REALTED: This Capitol Police officer has a new mission

    PRP president Jill Habig pointed out that the U.S. Capitol was not breached during the Civil War but was on Jan. 6, 2021, and she said the attack was instigated by Trump and carried out by his followers with the intention of overturning American democracy to keep him in power.

    “The evidence that we have seen and heard and watched with our own eyes over the last few years has made it quite clear that President Trump lost an election in 2020 and has spent the months and years since then trying to overturn the results of that election in a variety of ways, including people marching to the Capitol and invading the Capitol,” Habig said. “It’s difficult to argue with a straight face that these activities don’t qualify for Section 3.”

    https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-insurrection-2667170651/?u=3b00243f923b187b1dd5c9552213102c014f8ee2e8a986d1f0184019eb7d5e5a&utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feb.5.2024_5.32pm

    • “So what?”

      Precisely. The other day, I swatted a fly that was buzzing around, and fed the carcass to Oscar, our Venus flytrap. When compared to any dacian post, or PRP amicus brief by extension, the fly has more value because it actually accomplished something, even if it was in death.

      • You, sir, need some Archer fish*.

        Waaay more entertaining than a fly trap.

        *Ensure your tank as a top, otherwise they make one hell of a mess in the summer-ish months.

    • Did Congress convict him of insurrection during the impeachments? No.

      How do you apply the Amendment without the conviction?

      What entity has the authority to charge, try and convict for the charge of insurrection? Is that authority deliberating such a charge?

  24. Okay, I have to be that guy, but this does not fit under the “Defensive Gun Use of the Day” tag. Unless you mean his “guns.” *flexes biceps*

  25. The bum broke into a house and assaulted a police officer in 2022. Then at the start of 2024 he broke into another house‽ Did he do hardly any time at all for the earlier crimes?

  26. @Anonymous Bosch
    “Sam
    1 Cor. 6:12?”

    That’s what popped into mind.

    Note: Really liked all the Harry Bosch books.

  27. Hopefully, the citizen won’t get charged with a crime for killing the dirtbag. He’d definitely be in trouble if it was California, New York, or New Jersey. Democrats don’t like it when you take their voters out of the pool.

  28. Great, now the anti-gun crowd has evidence nobody needs a gun to defend themselves. Just learn to choke-hold.

Comments are closed.