“Please Don’t Shoot” Heart Rending 911 Calls Placed Moments Before Texas Mom Killed Her Daughters

Read Time:1 Minute, 47 Second
Madison (left) and Taylor Sheats.   (Facebook, Facebook)
Madison (left) and Taylor Sheats. (Facebook, Facebook)

(NEWSER) – Police have released the heartbreaking 911 calls placed in the moments before Texas mom Christy Sheats killed her two daughters Friday. In the first of three calls—which are “difficult to listen to,” say police—Madison, 17, and Taylor, 22, can be heard pleading with their mom not to shoot. “Please forgive me, I’m sorry,” a voice says, per the Houston Chronicle. “Please don’t shoot, I’m sorry.”

A scream is then heard, followed by a male voice believed to be that of husband and father Jason Sheats pleading, “Please don’t point that gun at us … I beg you, please put it away,” per KHOU. “I promise you whatever you want,” the man continues before the call ends. A second call includes only muffled voices, screams, and shouts, per the Chronicle.

In a third call, a neighbor describes the two daughters lying in the street. He watches as a woman in a purple dress emerges from the house with a gun and stands over one of the victims. “She’s trying to shoot again … but apparently she don’t have any more bullets,” he says, per the Dallas Morning News.

He watches the woman go back inside to reload, then return. “Oh! She shot her again,” he says, per KHOU. “From the back. She was trying to run.” He then hears more gunfire and sees the shooter on the ground—killed by a police officer’s bullet.

A family friend says Sheats had recently moved back into the home and hid a gun in a couch before calling a family meeting. Fort Bend County police say they received a dozen calls from the home in four years, including three regarding suicide attempts. It isn’t clear who the calls were about.

This story is yet another example of how easy access to guns led to the deaths of two innocent people.  Had Christy Sheats not had her gun hidden in the couch cushions perhaps her daughters would be alive today. We need to repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with common sense gun laws.

About Post Author

Professor Mike

Professor Mike is a left-leaning, dog loving, political junkie. He has written dozens of articles for Substack, Medium, Simily, and Tribel. Professor Mike has been published at Smerconish.com, among others. He is a strong proponent of the environment, and a passionate protector of animals. In addition he is a fierce anti-Trumper. Take a moment and share his work.
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

19 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Glenn R. Geist
7 years ago

BTW, I’ve been firing black powder muzzle loaders for over 50 years, and they’re accurate as hell and a musket can be reloaded in seconds with a bit of practice. Isn’t it wonderful how memes evolve as errors are compounded with each telling? You’d think that firearms assaults not related to terrorism were not only on the increase but expanding exponentially. So you basically want to eliminate all repeating arms including revolvers? What about bolt action rifles since they weren’t around in 1789?

Reply to  Glenn R. Geist
7 years ago

I know very little about guns, but I highly doubt that a black powder muzzle loader can be as long-range accurate as a sniper’s rifle with a laser scope, and even if you can reload them faster than what I said, they don’t shoot 45 rounds per minute. They just don’t.

Anyway, was the gun you’re talking about manufactured 300 years ago, on a wood fired forge? Prolly not. So maybe a modern Black Powder Muzzle Loader may be accurate and easy to load, but that says nothing about what it was like when the things were made out of iron with 24% carbon.

Again however, I know nothing about guns, so perhaps I’m wrong about this part of the discussion. If so, I am willing to accept the correction. I can tell you though, I’m not wrong about the stats.

Marsha Woerner
7 years ago

I don’t know about “repealing”, per se, the Second Amendment. But I do believe that it needs to be re-examined and reinterpreted! The Second Amendment does not say ANYTHING about guns! Repealing in would be a lengthy involved process. On the other hand, I believe that it is within the realm of the Supreme Court to reinterpret and redefine it. It is possible to get the NRA TOTALLY out of the discussion! We need to reevaluate the meaning of a “well regulated militia” and “keep and bear arms”. For all of the constitutional “originalists”, I cannot see how multi-round rifles, or even single round modern handguns qualify!

Marsha Woerner
Reply to  Professor Mike
7 years ago

Again, I think it more doable to emphasize that the second amendment does not say anything about GUNS or the rights own same!

Reply to  Marsha Woerner
7 years ago

You must be thinking of another amendment Marsha because the Second says that people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Marsha Woerner
Reply to  Paul Gallagher
7 years ago

No, that’s exactly the one I’m referring to. By keeping and bearing arms DOES NOT EQUAL buying guns! Arms does not equal guns! As I say, we need to reevaluate the actual meaning of the Second Amendment, and if the current evaluation actually means that arms are all guns, why is it not the case that weaponized anthrax, atomic bombs, hand grenades, etc. are not included? Keeping and bearing arms is not the same as buying any gun of any ability and perhaps carrying it undetected on your person in public. I strongly believe that the meaning of “arms” absolutely needs to be examined and DEFINED! Just because in modern days “arms” doesn’t seem to be able to be interpreted as anything other than “guns”, that doesn’t mean that the meaning of the Second Amendment really has anything to do with guns! As opposed to repealing it, it is in the benefit of the nation to interpret it more (or is it less?) broadly!

Reply to  Marsha Woerner
7 years ago

Convincing Righties to apply a different interpretation to the Second Amendment will be just as hard as repealing it. I’m with Mike.

Glenn R. Geist
Reply to  Marybelle
7 years ago

And convincing them with fudged numbers and by calling them nasty names is so easy.

Reply to  Marsha Woerner
7 years ago

It’s the right to keep and arm bears. 🙂

Just kidding.

I had this out with MM, the other day. Now, I think he’s right. The Framers never could have intended the situation we’re living with today. When they wrote the amendment, it was part of a grand compromise between the Federalists and the State’s Rights advocates. The 10th amendment suffers from the same poor language and passive-aggressive compromise. In fact, were it not for the entire Bill of Rights, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

But the Founders had just fought an 8-year long slog, with what was then, the closest thing to a World Power. And they did so with no formal U.S. Army per se. The “arms” they refer to were only capable of firing one highly inaccurate round at a time, and required a full minute to reload.

I’ll end this diatribe with the stats I’ve been screaming about all over the Web, for the past month.

Number of child involved shootings = 1 per week.
Number of mass shootings = 1 per day.

And the best saved for last…

Number of reported shootings of any kind in the U.S. =

1 every 60 seconds.

1 every 60 seconds.

Tell me how Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin feel about that.

Marsha Woerner
Reply to  BitcoDavid
7 years ago

But my point is that the second amendment does not refer to guns, at all! Who’s to say that they weren’t talking about swords?! Oh, they didn’t say Sabres? They didn’t say guns, either!
And I know that getting the Republicans or the NRA folks to go with a reinterpretation is difficult at best, the Supreme Court was able to pass the reinterpretation of marriage laws to include same-sex couples! Reinterpretations to make things relevant the times are STILL easier than repealing an amendment that was crucial to the passing of the Constitution!

Glenn R. Geist
Reply to  Marsha Woerner
7 years ago

By mentioning the needs of a militia, the inference is a requirement for military grade arms. The era of warfare with sticks and stones having been long over with by then.

Glenn R. Geist
Reply to  BitcoDavid
7 years ago

365 “mass shootings” per year? Really? 86,400 reported shootings a day? Seriously?

Without further comment on the assumption that insane people won’t kill their children if you can’t legally buy a gun, making up numbers is not the way to convince opponents you’re right or reasonable or even entirely honest. You do want to convince opponents don’t you, because all the endless preaching to the converted doesn’t really do much but increase the potential of the polarization. Onanistic rage parties may be fun and all that, but it’s a hell of a terrible way to learn anything — or do we already know it all? Or do we keep it amongst ourselves for fear of refutation?

All the children neglected, starved, beaten to death, raped, drowned and stabbed. We only care about guns. You know, maybe the “right” to have children should be earned?

Reply to  Glenn R. Geist
7 years ago

Glenn, I’m not making those numbers up. I wish I was. Look them up. They’re all over the Web.

Reply to  Professor Mike
7 years ago

Any incident where 1 individual shoots 2 or more people.

And again, I didn’t make these numbers up. I looked them up. I’ve been writing about this for some time now. I actually did some research.

You guys (no offense MM) seem to think I just pulled this outta my ass. I didn’t.

These numbers don’t refer to killings, merely shootings. The bulk of shooting victims live – surprisingly.

The info is readily available, that’s why I haven’t bothered with citations. Just google “shootings in U.S. stats.” They’ll come right up.

But your incredulity proves my point. I too, think these numbers sound hyperbolic. But that’s the level of crisis we’re at right now. When a stat – any stat – sounds so utterly unbelievable, isn’t it time to begin serious discussion on how to effect the very necessary changes?

FWIW, I live in Boston. Several years back – actually about 20 or so, now – one of our hospitals received an award for being the best trauma center in the U.S. The reason was the number of shooting victims they treated. I was there, in the EU for an infection, and I saw the ambulances bringing in shooting victims. It was at least 1 every 5 minutes, and that was 1 city in the U.S., and it was 20 years ago.

As extreme as these stats sound, I have no trouble believing them.

Previous post How Jeff Zucker Turned CNN into FOX Lite With No Moral Compass and Lots of Trump Worshipping
Next post What We Know So Far About Istanbul Airport Attack
19
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x