Community | September 28, 2008 | 126 comments

Intruder dies, intending sexual assault

source: http://www.theindychannel.com/news/17576601/detail.html

Image
cantucwearebrothers
INDIANAPOLIS -- A man who police said broke into a home with the intention of sexually assault a 17-year-old girl in her bedroom died early Sunday morning after a struggle with the girl's father.

David Meyers (pictured), 52, was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after officers arrived following a report of a home invasion in the 3500 block of West 79th Street at about 3:20 a.m.

Officers said they found Robert McNally, 64, on the floor with his arm around the neck of Meyers, struggling to hold him down.

When officers told McNally he could let go, they found that Meyers was unresponsive. Medics who were called to the scene then pronounced Meyers dead.

Indianapolis police Sgt. Matt Mount said Meyers had come into the home naked, except for a mask and latex gloves.

"He had rope, had a knife, had condoms, had a gag," Mount said.

Police said Meyers had gotten into the home through a window next to the girl's bedroom and that he knew the home well because his uncle owns it and he was an acquaintance of the family.

The teen awoke to find a naked man in her room and began screaming, alerting McNally, police said.

During a protracted struggle in the hallway of the home, McNally was able to get his arm around Meyers' neck and subdue him while his wife called police, officers said.

Meyers was a registered sex offender and was released from prison two years ago after he had served 10 years of a 20-year sentence for criminal confinement and sexual deviate conduct stemming from a case in Hamilton County.

Meyers was also being sought in Boone County for failure to register as a sex offender.

Police said Meyers had been living with his mother down a gravel road from the home that the McNally family lived in and had recently lost his job.

"When they got the mask off, both the father and daughter recognized him," Mount said.

Police said Meyers had a history of heart problems. They were not immediately sure if he died as a result of heart failure or from being choked.

The results of the police investigation will be turned over to the Marion County Prosecutor's Office, but it is unlikely charges will be filed, police said.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Crime,   Current News US
  2. tags:
    News,  Crime,  Current News US,  Justice,  3 more
  3.     
    |

126 comments // Intruder dies, intending sexual assault

  • Everestmagic
    • 0
      Everestmagic  

    • Tthe only way to reduce the crime rate in this country is fighting "FIRE with FIRE". The sad thing is along as you have criminal and family lawyers with judges and senators in their back pockets nothing is ever going to change in this country.Everyone should have a ccw permit and be able to protect themselves and their families

      "WAKE UP AMERICA"

    • 3 years ago
  • CR00258
    • 0
      CR00258  

    • what if he would have brought an illegal gun from his mothers house. I am a ccw carrier and I think everyone (non felon) who want to carry a weapon should. Its our right to carry just as its your right to choose not to.

    • 3 years ago
  • ALE609
  • shroomfairy
  • eldamon
  • rexmundi
  • DEM46
  • HolyCity2012
  • torybart
  • JudahEvan
    • 0
      JudahEvan  

    • If I believed in hell, then I would imagine this guy screaming for mercy as the fires engulf his body for all of eternity. If I believed in hell.

      Since I don't, the comfort I get from knowing that this fucker will never attempt to harm another human, because he is dead as shit, will do.

      Though Dad must be relieved, I imagine he is going through some tough shit in his mind right now. I wish all the best to him and his family.

    • 3 years ago
  • HolyCity2012
    • 0
      HolyCity2012  

    • Being featured on current dot com for a failed sexual assault.

      So this is your swan song Mr. David Meyers?

      I would rather be struck by lightning while being eaten by a tiger.

    • 3 years ago
  • HeroMAY
  • CR00258
    • 0
      CR00258  

    • I AGREE 100%. NO MERCEY FOR THESE PERVERTS. THESE SEXUAL PREDS SHOULD ALL BE KILLED!!! KEEP OUR WOMEN AND CHILDREN SAFE!!!

    • 3 years ago
  • HolyCity2012
  • torybart
  • mdiesel64
    • 0
      mdiesel64  

    • Only thing that makes me sad is this sicko may have just died from a heart attack. He deserved alot worse. To quote Pulp Fiction He deserved " a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' DUDES, who'll go to work on the holmes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch." Dad shoulda went Medieval on his ass.... LOL.

    • 3 years ago
  • CR00258
  • rainbowryan420
  • CR00258
    • 0
      CR00258  

    • YES, IN THIS CASE HE DID. BUT CHECK THE STATS, MOST INTRUDERS DO HAVE A GUN. IF THIS WERE THE CASE, THE INTURDER WOULD PROBABLY HAVE KILLED BOTH OF THEM. IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONSIDER THE FACTS CONSIDER ALL OF THEM.

    • 3 years ago
  • CR00258
    • 0
      CR00258  

    • TORYBART, iLLINOIS IS NOT EVEN A CCW STATE. OBAMA MADE SURE OF THAT. CHECK YOUR FACTS. I AM CCW LICENSED AND THINK EVERY CITIZEN (NON FELON) SHOULD CARRY A WEAPON. MAKE THESE CRIMINALS WONDER IF THE PERSON THEY ARE ABOUT TO ATTACK HAS A BIGGER GUN.

    • 3 years ago
  • CR00258
    • 0
      CR00258  

    • TORYBART, I AM GALD YOU FEEL WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP GUNS. bUT REMEBER HOW MUCH YOU WISH THEY DIDNT EXIST WHEN (I HOPE YOU NEVER DO) SOMEONE IS GOING TO SHOOT YOU AND YOU NEED S COP TO SHOOT HIM FIRST

    • 3 years ago
  • torybart
    • 0
      torybart  
    • CR00258:

      First, you're argument has no true value because my point was if guns did not exist then this wouldn't be a problem.

      Second, you mentioned yourself I think people should have the right to bear arms (in our current situation), but in no way does that mean that I should like guns.

      Third, I did not mention CCW in any point in this discussion. If you look closely you will see that all I was pointing out is that if a person is threatening you in your own home (in Illinois by STATE LAW) you can use deadly force without any warning.

      Next time read a little more carefully.

    • 3 years ago
  • peenkeefeenger
  • ninepounds6
  • nnniick
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  

    • jennaskarzenski, the actual wording is "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms....". Don't forget the "keep". I guess one can keep without ownership but it does say "keep". Also the Second does not grant any right. It says the right is inherent and the government shall not mess with it. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

      Kudos to the dad. Good job. WE need more of this.

      I agree that this is a very good reason why the gov. should not trample on the Second Amendment as they have on the rest of the Constitution.

    • 3 years ago
  • Neghie
    • 0
      Neghie  

    • Meyers was obviously a sick man. Glad someone put him out of his misery so he doesn't keep causing others the misery of being violated at his discretion.

    • 3 years ago
  • fighttheNWO
  • MrRah
  • usman6
    • 0
      usman6  

    • 2nd amendment or not.
      if the sex offender was to be carrying a gun too, then what would've happened?
      it's not if we are allowed to have it or not, but how we use it.

    • 3 years ago
  • americangook
  • petarro
  • futurehempfarmer
    • 0
      futurehempfarmer  

    • See, this is a real sex offender, a very disturbing one at that. And now a days if you piss on a california tree (minding your own business while blocking all vew) you'll be arrested and filed as a sex offender. We need to leave room in prison for the real offenders like this guy. I say free the tree pissers! While your at it let the pot smokers run free too.

    • 3 years ago
  • Katanajon
    • Katanajon  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • metalcookiesxy70
    • 0
      metalcookiesxy70  
    • Katanajon:

      Yes, the government cannot protect everyone, with security, from certain things such as these, so its just common sense for someone to defend one another no matter who they are, and what the ememy is...

    • 3 years ago
  • WorldPeaceTV
  • deeblackangel
  • daguitri
  • messiahpal
  • jarratt
    • 0
      jarratt  

    • this makes me really sad. the man spent 10 years in prison for a sexual offense and then was unable to stop himself from offending again. he obviously needed something in a major way that prison didn't give him, who knows maybe her could never get whatever that something is...

    • 3 years ago
  • americangook
  • torybart
    • 0
      torybart  
    • jarratt:

      Just another example of how incredible flawed our justice system is. It doesn't work on anybody for anything. It just makes criminals a little sneakier when they get out.

    • 3 years ago
  • Not_A_Fox
    • 0
      Not_A_Fox  

    • Oh my God, I keep getting all this damned responses defending the 2nd amendment...

      I TOLD YOU ALL THAT THIS IS NOT A PLACE TO DEFEND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

      WHAT DO GUNS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS?

      NOTHING

    • 3 years ago
  • CR00258
  • KateLove
  • rob4goods
    • 0
      rob4goods  

    • Living in Enlgand right now and have found out that you can wound an intruder but will be charged with in/voluntary manslaughter if you kill him under the circumstance.... This is one US law they should adopt and this story is the reson why.

    • 3 years ago
  • Eat_Disco
  • torybart
    • 0
      torybart  
    • rob4goods:

      Sorry, but that's not one hundred percent true...

      Illinois State Law (Castle Doctrine):

      "Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
      (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
      (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
      if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary"

      And this actually was law in England before being adopted in the U.S. so you can thank your own country, ha ha.

    • 3 years ago
  • rob4goods
    • 0
      rob4goods  
    • rob4goods:

      Sorry... i don't follow. "is justified in using deadly force" Thats what i had said. What im talking about is the use of deadly force will result in incarceration in the UK. I only say this because my friend (in Britain) stabbed someone and was arrested. It was later overturned, but he was told that if the person had died it would be a non-malicious act that is punishable. Can you find the UK law that allows deadly force? I just go on what people tell me of experience, but the actual doctrine would quite useful... Thanks for the response, PEACE.

    • 3 years ago
  • Not_A_Fox
    • 0
      Not_A_Fox  

    • This is not a place for defending the 2nd institution.

      And this is not a place to thank god that some creep got rubbed off and is now closer to some over the top punishment for eternity.

      This is a place to acknowledge that a crime was stopped, and that the father was in the right.

      Should charges be filed? No.

      Should we be allowed to own guns for self defense? I see it more for entertainment value and a protection of individual freedoms, but yes.

      Should we not think to attempt curing an illness manifesting itself in such a sorry, miserable manner? Fuck no. We should be looking more into it and seeing what we can do to put a curb on this shit.

      You can't put an end to it, just the same as you can't put an end to terrorism. But you can analyze it, learn, and put forward actions that can control it.

    • 3 years ago
  • wolfinsheepsclothing
  • realfran
  • lordsbassman
  • keithponder
    • keithponder  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • blueman53
    • 0
      blueman53  
    • keithponder:

      I hear what your saying. but should we give the gov't the right to do something (killing someone) that an individual doesn't have the right to do?

      Rape is awful and I'm glad it was stopped in this case.

    • 3 years ago
  • HolyCity2012
    • 0
      HolyCity2012  
    • keithponder:

      No crime should be a capital punishment crime.

      What a horrible thing to say.

      Do I really need to find the laundry list of people who have been locked-up and then years later found innocent?

      Do I?

      Or can you admit that your statement is flat-out wrong?

    • 3 years ago
  • Liberal_Extinction
  • jimenagamio
  • Katanajon
    • Katanajon  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • HolyCity2012
  • CCashman
    • 0
      CCashman  

    • The father's arm should be registered as a lethal weapon. My dad's a judge, and he has said on multiple occasions (while being recorded by the stenographer) that if someone tried to harm me or anyone else in my family, he'd kill 'em.

    • 3 years ago
  • neutralmilkhotel
  • T_Rose
  • jh64487
  • regjoeschmo
  • Eat_Disco
  • wolfinsheepsclothing
    • 0
      wolfinsheepsclothing  

    • criminals don't care about gun laws. i can pretty much guarantee that if you're planning a robbery and you go to buy some assault rifles from the back of some guys trunk there will be NO background check. do you guys think that criminals stop and think "hmmm, i better not bring my AK-47 when i go and sell some crack, it's not legal..." NO! they don't! if that rapist really wanted a gun he would have gotten one somehow, either from the black market, or theft or any number of ways that any determined and depraved person can get anything. prohibition is not a deterrent against anything. it only creates opportunities for smugglers to make money.

    • 3 years ago
  • Hendrix_Is_God
    • 0
      Hendrix_Is_God  
    • wolfinsheepsclothing:

      Yes but the fact is that if guns were Illegal how much HARDER would it be for a guy to maigally conjure up weapons, it would make alot harder for criminals and civilians to get weapons and nither seem to bother me in the slightest, the less guns in the world the more living in the world.

    • 3 years ago
  • jennaskarzenski
    • 0
      jennaskarzenski  

    • Oh and just to point it out, the "right to bear arms" was never specifically stated in the constitution as owning a gun. There has been controversy to the vagueness of the statement, but our forefathers didn't necessarily guarantee us a right to own guns.

    • 3 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
  • FallenMorgan
  • jennaskarzenski
    • 0
      jennaskarzenski  
    • jennaskarzenski:

      haha FallenMorgan.

      And as for regjoeschmo, I really don't understand how my argument for the vagueness of the term "right to bear arms" makes me unknowledgeable of American history. I mean, if you know of any document where our founding fathers explicitly say that we, the citizens of the United States, have the right to own guns... by all means show me.

    • 3 years ago
  • FallenMorgan
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • jennaskarzenski:

      no, it's extremely clear as to what the founding fathers meant. it's fairly simply stated.

      i mean, a good debater could argue about anything, but that kinda nonsense is unnecessary and annoying

    • 3 years ago
  • FallenMorgan
  • jennaskarzenski
    • 0
      jennaskarzenski  
    • jennaskarzenski:

      "The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about the year 1330. And, defines the term to bear arms against as: "to be engaged in hostilities with."

      Wikipedia "right to bear arms" and you'll see what I'm talking about.

    • 3 years ago
  • wolfinsheepsclothing
    • 0
      wolfinsheepsclothing  
    • jennaskarzenski:

      your quibble seems to be with the word "gun." there would be no reason to be so specific. the point is to ensure that we were allowed to have weapons in general. the "vagueness" as you put it, is intentional. If they said the right to bear guns then that would mean only guns. To run of a list of all approved weapons would not have made sense either. you have to remember, guns were relatively new at the time and weapons technology was changing every day. would we limit ourselves to only one or two items, or change the law everyday as new weapons came out? most likely no. that vagueness was meant to cover all bases.

    • 3 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
    • 0
      regjoeschmo  
    • jennaskarzenski:

      Not only that but the reason for such an amendment was because the redcoats took guns out of peoples homes!!!!!! So they could not fight and defend themselves... Im sure they didnt assume wed have ray-guns now like it was predicted in the 50's.. but im definately sure the meaning was concerning the guns they had taken away from them. That is what I meant by look up our history. The context of the words means more than a dictionary says. Shit the word liberal means "for positive reform" but is that what the "liberals" in our govt do??

    • 3 years ago
  • Humdrum
    • 0
      Humdrum  
    • jennaskarzenski:

      ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’

      "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

      ~ Thomas Jefferson

      (I don't think he was talking about loaves of bread)

    • 3 years ago
  • samanthadian
  • americangook
  • CR00258
  • torybart
    • 0
      torybart  
    • jennaskarzenski:

      That "well regulated militia" need to keep their guns somewhere and seeing as not all towns have militia armories the house seems fine to me.

      And since when is a safe household not part of the safe, free state?

      I hate guns and wish they didn't exist, but the people need the right to defend themselves, especially from their own government.

    • 3 years ago
  • HolyCity2012
  • jennaskarzenski
  • HolyCity2012
    • 0
      HolyCity2012  
    • jennaskarzenski:

      The only controversy is between fruit-loops and moon-bats...

      Let me squash this ridiculous debate once and for all.

      As long as the police and the military have / use firearms then we all need guns because the police and military are the biggest threat to my / our liberty.

      peace,
      goodnight,
      the end,
      adios,
      go to bed...

    • 3 years ago
  • FallenMorgan
    • 0
      FallenMorgan  

    • Um...for those who are saying this means we don't need the second amendment...

      What it the guy was physically a wuss? I mean, are we going to assume everyone can have the ability to strangle someone with their bare hands?

    • 3 years ago
  • mr_tibbles
  • rebot
  • shakeydeal0
  • rwylie
    • 0
      rwylie  

    • This is pretty much a closed case I'm sure; he was protecting his daughter, the father had the right to use all force required to stop the guy.

    • 3 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
    • 0
      regjoeschmo  

    • Your last question there is why we do need the right to have guns... What if he had a gun and the homeowner didnt...... that speaks for itself.

    • 3 years ago
  • flyingkick
  • Humdrum
    • 0
      Humdrum  
    • regjoeschmo:

      Criminals don't need legal permission to carry a gun.
      It's what makes them criminals.
      Tools are never to blame for the actions of their wielders. May as well ban gasoline, or knives, or forearms.

    • 3 years ago
  • Eat_Disco
  • torybart
    • 0
      torybart  
    • regjoeschmo:

      That's laughable. You think criminals get their guns from stealing legal guns? You're naive if you believe there is no illegal trafficking of guns in the U.S.

      How do criminals get automatic weapons then? They were illegal until about 3 years ago and there are plenty of them on the streets.

    • 3 years ago
  • redvelvet1278
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • Image
    • regjoeschmo:

      Making gun's illegal wouldn't necessarily make them unattainable either. Google "homemade gun" and you'll be surprised how easy it is (or, at least, it seems).

      The one above was famously made by Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski.

    • 3 years ago
  • Kamilo
    • 0
      Kamilo  

    • Why is everyone talking about guns and the 2nd amendment?! This proves that you DON'T need a gun in your household as the father was able to subdue the man without any weapons other than his fists. What if Meyers had brought a pistol legally owned by his mother to the house?

    • 3 years ago
  • wolfinsheepsclothing
    • 0
      wolfinsheepsclothing  
    • Kamilo:

      actually it doesn't prove or disprove anything. the 2nd amendment was about having an armed general populace, trained as a militia, so that there would be no need for a standing army on US soil. And owning a gun neither makes you a good or bad person. If you decide to do harm you will find a way. A criminal is a criminal, they don't give a rat's ass about gun laws. Making it hard to legally get guns only makes it hard on law abiding citizens.

    • 3 years ago
12
1 - 100 of 134
more from Community:
from the community

top videos